I renounce islam

[Vhaelor]

Yosemite mate, after your latest post I have decided to call it a night. Wrote a lengthy response which I have now redacted simply because reason can not reach you.

If reasoned arguments worked on religious people, there would be no religious people - Dr House

Have a good evening, mate.

[PointOfViewGun]

Married at 7, consummated at 9 according to the most respectable Muslim sources. Yes there are contradictions (which should give rise to other questions in the minds of Muslims) but the reliability leans toward the 7 and 9 scenario. Does this make Muslims all pedophiles? No, that's idiotic.

There is no intellectual dishonesty in intellectual study of her age. Even those sources that you call "most respectable Muslim sources" have contradictions. For example, al-Tabari writes that Aisha was bethroded at age of 7 and started living with Mohammed at age of 9(623). He also writes that all of Abu Bakr's children were born before the Islamic era(at most 610). That introduces a discrepancy of 5 years.

Another such source is Ibn Hajar who writes that Fatima is 5 years older than Aisha (sisters), that Fatima was born during the re-building of Ka'bah when Mohammed was 35 and that Mohammed was 52 when he married Aisha. That puts Aisha at age of 12 when she was betrothed and 14-15 when she started living with him. However, in another one the same source writes that the age difference between Asma and Aisha (sisters) is 10 and that Asma lived a hundred years and died 73 after Hijrah. If Asma was 27 years old during the Hijrah, Aisha must be 17 years old. Knowing the fact that she started living with Mohammed after Hijrah she was at least 18 years old. That introduces a discrepancy of 3 years with his own writings and 9 years with yours.

Such discrepancies exists even in writings of Aisha herself. She writes that she participated in the Battle of Uhud. By rule people who are under the age of 15 are not allowed to participate at all and are sent back. The Battle of Uhud was in 625 and the accepted year of Aisha living with Mohammed was 623 earliest. That makes her at least 12 when she started living with him.

Many other discrepancies and refutation points exists concerning Aisha's age. So, the reliability does not lean towards 7/9 scenario and a historical study of her age points a much older age.

[Carpathian Wolf]

There is no intellectual dishonesty in intellectual study of her age. Even those sources that you call "most respectable Muslim sources" have contradictions. For example, al-Tabari writes that Aisha was bethroded at age of 7 and started living with Mohammed at age of 9(623). He also writes that all of Abu Bakr's children were born before the Islamic era(at most 610). That introduces a discrepancy of 5 years.

Another such source is Ibn Hajar who writes that Fatima is 5 years older than Aisha (sisters), that Fatima was born during the re-building of Ka'bah when Mohammed was 35 and that Mohammed was 52 when he married Aisha. That puts Aisha at age of 12 when she was betrothed and 14-15 when she started living with him. However, in another one the same source writes that the age difference between Asma and Aisha (sisters) is 10 and that Asma lived a hundred years and died 73 after Hijrah. If Asma was 27 years old during the Hijrah, Aisha must be 17 years old. Knowing the fact that she started living with Mohammed after Hijrah she was at least 18 years old. That introduces a discrepancy of 3 years with his own writings and 9 years with yours.

Such discrepancies exists even in writings of Aisha herself. She writes that she participated in the Battle of Uhud. By rule people who are under the age of 15 are not allowed to participate at all and are sent back. The Battle of Uhud was in 625 and the accepted year of Aisha living with Mohammed was 623 earliest. That makes her at least 12 when she started living with him.

Many other discrepancies and refutation points exists concerning Aisha's age. So, the reliability does not lean towards 7/9 scenario and a historical study of her age points a much older age.

Just because "normal people" aren't allowed to participate in a battle at such an age, does not mean Aisha, virgin bride of the Prophet, can not participate. The sources closest to the event place her age at 7 and 9. Deal with it. I've had this discussion countless times.

[sumskilz]

There is no intellectual dishonesty in intellectual study of her age. Even those sources that you call "most respectable Muslim sources" have contradictions. For example, al-Tabari writes that Aisha was bethroded at age of 7 and started living with Mohammed at age of 9(623). He also writes that all of Abu Bakr's children were born before the Islamic era(at most 610). That introduces a discrepancy of 5 years.

Another such source is Ibn Hajar who writes that Fatima is 5 years older than Aisha (sisters), that Fatima was born during the re-building of Ka'bah when Mohammed was 35 and that Mohammed was 52 when he married Aisha. That puts Aisha at age of 12 when she was betrothed and 14-15 when she started living with him. However, in another one the same source writes that the age difference between Asma and Aisha (sisters) is 10 and that Asma lived a hundred years and died 73 after Hijrah. If Asma was 27 years old during the Hijrah, Aisha must be 17 years old. Knowing the fact that she started living with Mohammed after Hijrah she was at least 18 years old. That introduces a discrepancy of 3 years with his own writings and 9 years with yours.

Such discrepancies exists even in writings of Aisha herself. She writes that she participated in the Battle of Uhud. By rule people who are under the age of 15 are not allowed to participate at all and are sent back. The Battle of Uhud was in 625 and the accepted year of Aisha living with Mohammed was 623 earliest. That makes her at least 12 when she started living with him.

Many other discrepancies and refutation points exists concerning Aisha's age. So, the reliability does not lean towards 7/9 scenario and a historical study of her age points a much older age.

So evidently early Muslim sources can be subjected to critical analysis and their authenticity questioned as long as the questions being asked are not offensive to believers.

[motiv-8]

So evidently early Muslim sources can be subjected to critical analysis and their authenticity questioned as long as the questions being asked are not offensive to believers.

Muslims, including the scholars, don't generally care what age Aisha was... It just didn't come up. Nor did it come up in Western sources until modern times. It's manufactured controversy based on politics.

But the entire process of isnad revolves around critically analyzing the authenticity of sources. At least in theory. The very scholars who came up with Islamic jurisprudence did exactly what you describe.

[PointOfViewGun]

Just because "normal people" aren't allowed to participate in a battle at such an age, does not mean Aisha, virgin bride of the Prophet, can not participate. The sources closest to the event place her age at 7 and 9. Deal with it. I've had this discussion countless times.

It does as there is not a single writing telling that she participated in the battle despite her age. However, clearly you can't handle such a discussion and cannot produce an educated argument. At most you managed to refute one point. There lies many more of discrepancies from those sources closest to the event place or those that are far. A scholarly examination all these sources, however, prove it to be impossible for her to be 7 and 9 during betrothal and marriage.

So evidently early Muslim sources can be subjected to critical analysis and their authenticity questioned as long as the questions being asked are not offensive to believers.

Questions can be offensive and such criticism happened through out the ages. However, there are two types of discussion that is not productive. One is done purely to insult the religion of Islam without any interest in an educated discussion like Carpathian Wolf often does and one is done against criticism purely due to pride like Poet often does.

[Carpathian Wolf]

It does as there is not a single writing telling that she participated in the battle despite her age. However, clearly you can't handle such a discussion and cannot produce an educated argument. At most you managed to refute one point. There lies many more of discrepancies from those sources closest to the event place or those that are far. A scholarly examination all these sources, however, prove it to be impossible for her to be 7 and 9 during betrothal and marriage.

Why would she participate in a battle? She's a woman. Women don't do that in Muslim culture. I really doubt the rule referred to her. And she wasn't there to fight, she was there to be with Mohamed. So again you are using "evidence" that doesn't apply to her.

You brought up the issue about her sister. "When someone gets that old, people don’t care too much about her exact age. It is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure. Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. Since in those days people did not carry birth certificates, it is very much likely that the person who reported her age to be 100 did not know that she was 10 years older than Aisha and did not sit to make the calculations and deductions. She was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy. This could be a genuine mistake by the narrator of the Hadith."

Aisha was still playing with dolls when Mohamed began acting as her husband. Do 18 year olds play with dolls? And isn't it law in Islam that if you are a girl you can only play with dolls before puberty? And that afterward they are done away with as to not fall into idolatry?

See if you stick onto the actual details that are important you begin to realize the truth.

[Gatsby]

Right, I didn't bring up the pedophilia point to somehow make it seem as though Islam supported pedophilia and all muslims are pedophiles, quite the opposite.

I brought it up as an example of how there is no point in seeing religion as some kind of superior authority on morality, when the actions of one of the most revered men in Islam would be denounced today. Religion is a human construction, and it can't ever have a solid stance on anything because it needs to adapt to keep in touch with the ultimately more powerful force on earth, society. I'm not trying to be juvenile and petty and make sick sex jests at Muhammad.

[PointOfViewGun]

See if you stick onto the actual details that are important you begin to realize the truth.

Thanks for proving my point about you. You didn't stick to actual details but simply altered those details while extending some of the truths for your convenience. Basically explaining the inconsistencies as " happens" is not an argument. Make a thread over it if you want to go over them in detail. At the moment you're just arguing for the sake of the argument and not providing intelligent arguments.

Right, I didn't bring up the pedophilia point to somehow make it seem as though Islam supported pedophilia and all muslims are pedophiles, quite the opposite.

I brought it up as an example of how there is no point in seeing religion as some kind of superior authority on morality, when the actions of one of the most revered men in Islam would be denounced today. Religion is a human construction, and it can't ever have a solid stance on anything because it needs to adapt to keep in touch with the ultimately more powerful force on earth, society. I'm not trying to be juvenile and petty and make sick sex jests at Muhammad.

Except you're taking one interpretation of his actions as the indisputable truth and expect us to respect that when we know it to be incorrect.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Thanks for proving my point about you. You didn't stick to actual details but simply altered those details while extending some of the truths for your convenience. Basically explaining the inconsistencies as " happens" is not an argument. Make a thread over it if you want to go over them in detail. At the moment you're just arguing for the sake of the argument and not providing intelligent arguments.

Ali Sina wrote a very good article I invite you to read.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/AyeshaAge.htm

I simply put in google "aisha age history" and this was the first or second thing that popped up. You can address the points but more likely I expect you to avoid doing that by referring to the site it's being hosted on. Whatever delusion you have about any point being proved in your favor is yours alone.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ali Sina wrote a very good article I invite you to read.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/AyeshaAge.htm

I simply put in google "aisha age history" and this was the first or second thing that popped up. You can address the points but more likely I expect you to avoid doing that by referring to the site it's being hosted on. Whatever delusion you have about any point being proved in your favor is yours alone.

Seems like your source of unintelligent argument was that article. That doesn't go beyond an extensive use of selective readings and contradictions. A rather convenient article for you but it actually hurts the points you're trying to defend more than it supports.

[sumskilz]

But the entire process of isnad revolves around critically analyzing the authenticity of sources. At least in theory. The very scholars who came up with Islamic jurisprudence did exactly what you describe.

Yeah, I’m familiar with the history. I think the practice gave the early Islamic historical narrative a remarkable cohesiveness, but isnad was essentially a religious activity in that it was, or has become, a closed system. The historical authenticity of these texts is settled in the minds of most Muslims so that modern scholarship’s attempt at reexamining these texts in light of modern science is often met with hostility despite the inconsistencies inherent within the accepted texts being well known to educated Muslims.

Questions can be offensive and such criticism happened through out the ages. However, there are two types of discussion that is not productive. One is done purely to insult the religion of Islam without any interest in an educated discussion like Carpathian Wolf often does and one is done against criticism purely due to pride like Poet often does.

From my cultural perspective, Muslims are highly sensitive in what they deem as an insult to Islam. I don’t really see this issue about Muhammad as being shocking whatever the truth of the matter considering the times. Some Christians get really upset about it I guess.

[Gatsby]

Except you're taking one interpretation of his actions as the indisputable truth and expect us to respect that when we know it to be incorrect.

There are other examples, such as religious teachings that are pushed aside in order to make religions seem more in touch, but I can't be bothered to look for anything right now.

[PointOfViewGun]

From my cultural perspective, Muslims are highly sensitive in what they deem as an insult to Islam. I don’t really see this issue about Muhammad as being shocking whatever the truth of the matter considering the times. Some Christians get really upset about it I guess.

I believe it's an issue of education.

There are other examples, such as religious teachings that are pushed aside in order to make religions seem more in touch, but I can't be bothered to look for anything right now.

I don't see the relevance.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What was with the reaction to those Danish cartoons anyway?

[PointOfViewGun]

What was with the reaction to those Danish cartoons anyway?

The reaction that started in a peaceful manner and continued as such for months while Danish prime minister rejected to meet with delegations from Islamic organizations and the cartoons were published over and over again for months? I don't know...

[Carpathian Wolf]

Seems like your source of unintelligent argument was that article. That doesn't go beyond an extensive use of selective readings and contradictions. A rather convenient article for you but it actually hurts the points you're trying to defend more than it supports.

As I was saying instead of addressing the points you scurry away with your delusion.

[PointOfViewGun]

As I was saying instead of addressing the points you scurry away with your delusion.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Sher Khan]

Yeah, I’m familiar with the history. I think the practice gave the early Islamic historical narrative a remarkable cohesiveness, but isnad was essentially a religious activity in that it was, or has become, a closed system. The historical authenticity of these texts is settled in the minds of most Muslims so that modern scholarship’s attempt at reexamining these texts in light of modern science is often met with hostility despite the inconsistencies inherent within the accepted texts being well known to educated Muslims.

From my cultural perspective, Muslims are highly sensitive in what they deem as an insult to Islam. I don’t really see this issue about Muhammad as being shocking whatever the truth of the matter considering the times. Some Christians get really upset about it I guess.

You may find this book an interesting and enlightening read.

As for the Islamic view of the hadith as historical narrative, this is a very recent viewpoint popularized in the Muslim world by Islamist revivalists. Historically, actual biographies about the Prophet and his disciples were used instead.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The reaction that started in a peaceful manner and continued as such for months while Danish prime minister rejected to meet with delegations from Islamic organizations and the cartoons were published over and over again for months? I don't know...

The cartoon controversy was carefully constructed pandemonium. Several months after Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons, two Imams who had been granted asylum in Denmark set off to travel around the Muslim world spreading hate against their adopted homeland. They took with them a dossier with the 12 cartoon panels and 3 completely unrelated pictures, which they also claimed were published (one of them was a picture of a Frenchman wearing a plastic pig snout). Their carefully cultivated "hurt" only sprouted 5 whole months after these cartoons were published.

After much hard work protests and flag burning sprouted up in Indonesia and Pakistan, Danish flags were burned, and protestors demanded the Danish government restrict freedom of speech and apologize for the blasphemy they had been permitting. It certainly wasn't peaceful. European and American embassies throughout the Muslim world were attacked. The Italian consulate in Libya was burned to the ground. Danish citizens and Westerners in general were attacked. Christian churches in Pakistan, with no connection to the West at all, were burned down. In Nigeria, Muslims attacked and murdered Christians in the streets - black Nigerian Christians. Obviously in this atmosphere other newspapers across Europe and America were right to reprint these cartoons in solidarity with Denmark.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie tried to justify this with "'The person of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is revered so profoundly in the Muslim world, with a love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part of the faith. There is also an Islamic teaching that one does not depict the Prophet.'"

That's the problem with religion (apart from it being false). I'll quote journalist Andrew Mueller, who points out muslims assume "that the values of Islam trump anyone else's - which is what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way, truth and light. If people wish to love a 7th century preacher more than their own families, that's up to them, but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously . .."