Debunking that aisha underage

Hamas_2

Hamas_2

Changed pfp again award
Image
1723348735936.png
im just gonna go here to debunk some claims that aisha is 9, basically
The well-known historian Ibn Jareer al-Tabari writes at page 50 of volume 4 of his 'Book of History': "Abu Bakr married two ladies in the days of ignorance. Fateelah daughter of Abd al-Aza was the first, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Umm-i-Rooman was the second, from whom Abd al-Rahman and Aisha were born. All the four children of Abu Bakr were born in the days of ignorance from the above-named two ladies.
It is a well-known fact of history, that Abu Bakr’s son Abd al-Rahman fought against the Muslims in the battle of Badr. His age at that time was 21-22 years, and although he was older than Aisha, there is no evidence to show that the difference between their ages was more than three or four years. This fact lends support to the view that Aisha was born four or five years before the Call.
Now we know that Aisha was engaged by prophet Muhammad (p) in around 11th year of call (i.e.around 620 ad ) and consummated by marriage after three years i.e., around 623-624 a.d.. Now do the calculation the calculation . In 623 when Aisha’s brother was 21-22 , at that time Aisha (r) was not less than 18-19 years .
Hence when Prophet Muhammad (p) engaged her in 620 ad she was around 16-17 years . Almost after 2-3 years Prophet (p) married her and took her to his home , which tends her age finally around 19
 
This makes no sense whatsoever, your entire argument boils down to "I'm a quranist and I don't care about the hadiths, therefore Aisha didn't marry when she was 6". Disregarding your own religious texts is pretty cucked, but if I asked you'd say you're le hardcore muslim or whatever. I'd actually respect you more if you owned up to the hadith in question and defended it. I don't like sweet lies, but I appreciate cold hard honesty. You're the third mudslime I'm saying this to in the forum, stop lying to yourselves.
 
Aedra_222 said:
This makes no sense whatsoever, your entire argument boils down to "I'm a quranist and I don't care about the hadiths, therefore Aisha didn't marry when she was 6". Disregarding your own religious texts is pretty cucked, but if I asked you'd say you're le hardcore muslim or whatever. I'd actually respect you more if you owned up to the hadith in question and defended it. I don't like sweet lies, but I appreciate cold hard honesty. You're the third mudslime I'm saying this to in the forum, stop lying to yourselves.
Click to expand...
Oversimplification is not good
 
Aedra_222 said:
This makes no sense whatsoever, your entire argument boils down to "I'm a quranist and I don't care about the hadiths, therefore Aisha didn't marry when she was 6". Disregarding your own religious texts is pretty cucked, but if I asked you'd say you're le hardcore muslim or whatever. I'd actually respect you more if you owned up to the hadith in question and defended it. I don't like sweet lies, but I appreciate cold hard honesty. You're the third mudslime I'm saying this to in the forum, stop lying to yourselves.
Click to expand...
1723369036359.png
So you're saying i can't side with scholars because they make claims that aisha's age was inaccurate and that she was 19 during marriage? You know some muslims sided with scholars you know. + I don't live in a 3rd world country i live in the USA, Ohio.
 
Why don't you guys just become Quran purists or something if you're not gonna follow well-respected Hadith. The Sahih al-Bukhari explicitly states Aisha was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation, so why do you not believe al-Bukhari while you do believe al-Tabari? No muslims even cared about this detail before recently.

What's kekking hilarious is that both of these men were Persians which just demonstrates how much more skilled and intelligent the Iranics were than the Arab barbarians who conquered them. The Islamic Golden Age was really a Perso-Bactrian Golden Age and Muhammad himself said Persians were better than Arabs
 
you know this shit always boils down to muslims saying whatever they can to defend their religion and people who aren't muslims just taking it for what it is
what i dont understand is why muslims have to be all mask on about it and say that "NOOOO ITS NOT TRUUE NOOOOOOOOOOOOO" like if your religion does condone these things and we know that the countries you come from are not exactly the most western, liberal or democratic either, then why do you have to pretend like you're squeaky clean and peaceful, when you're not? things like religion can get messy, so why try and sugar coat it? islam is very violent, but as long as you can come across in such a way that the violence is justified, then there is no argument to be had, you can be like legion from fallout new vegas, instead of trying to fit in and trying to pretend like you're actually western and liberal and totally peaceful etc.

im just saying countries have diff culture, i'm not a goat fucker so obviously i wouldn't condone fucking goats but if your country and culture likes it or condones certain things we don't, why should you have to lie about it? because you'll get "heckin bannerino'd" or something? isn't getting banned or disliked by western society way better than watering down your own religion and what you believe in for the sake of social likability?

the more people do this, the more islam just becomes a shittier, unintelligible more boring version of christianity with a different set of rules, same shit, different smell.
if you're a true muslim, you'll say it like it is without sugarcoating it. as for me however, i find islam disgusting, so ofcourse if you're a muslim, i'm not going to like you.
and if i don't like you for being muslim, what business do you have trying to change my mind? you know in your mind that you are objectively more correct than me, the white infidel.

so what. is. the point?
trying to invade western society or something?
 
Soygoy said:
you know this shit always boils down to muslims saying whatever they can to defend their religion and people who aren't muslims just taking it for what it is
what i dont understand is why muslims have to be all mask on about it and say that "NOOOO ITS NOT TRUUE NOOOOOOOOOOOOO" like if your religion does condone these things and we know that the countries you come from are not exactly the most western, liberal or democratic either, then why do you have to pretend like you're squeaky clean and peaceful, when you're not? things like religion can get messy, so why try and sugar coat it? islam is very violent, but as long as you can come across in such a way that the violence is justified, then there is no argument to be had, you can be like legion from fallout new vegas, instead of trying to fit in and trying to pretend like you're actually western and liberal and totally peaceful etc.

im just saying countries have diff culture, i'm not a goat fucker so obviously i wouldn't condone fucking goats but if your country and culture likes it or condones certain things we don't, why should you have to lie about it? because you'll get "heckin bannerino'd" or something? isn't getting banned or disliked by western society way better than watering down your own religion and what you believe in for the sake of social likability?

the more people do this, the more islam just becomes a shittier, unintelligible more boring version of christianity with a different set of rules, same shit, different smell.
if you're a true muslim, you'll say it like it is without sugarcoating it. as for me however, i find islam disgusting, so ofcourse if you're a muslim, i'm not going to like you.
and if i don't like you for being muslim, what business do you have trying to change my mind? you know in your mind that you are objectively more correct than me, the white infidel.

so what. is. the point?
trying to invade western society or something?
Click to expand...
i think most of this just boils down to that no religion is free from valid criticism at the end of the day.
 
Back
Top