Your assertion that "99% of Muslims who believe it make it so" is, in itself, a logical ERROR, CUCKOLD. Simply because widespread belief comes from the followers of a religion doesn't provide evidence for the truth of their beliefs WHATSOEVER KEK. Scholarship isn't some kind of popularity contest, retard, it's a search for evidence. To assume that since one historical detail is contested, Islam as a religion is "useless," is simply a different kind of logical error. Disputes over historical accounts shouldn't invalidate a religion any more than the question of some biblical figures belittles Christianity. Calling Ibn Jareer al-Tabari, a well-respected Islamic historian, “a book no one’s heard about” is ridiculous. Ibn Jareer became one of the most quoted figures in Islamic historiography, and your feeble attempt to brush aside his work displays ignorance, like the little bitch you are. You pointed out "two separate accounts," but provided no argument for their infallibility, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Historical narratives do not usually conform to a single story and cross-referencing alternate timelines as proposed here is standard scholarly practice. Not admitting to this shows that you are more concerned about dogma than dialogue. You keep alluding to "Bible maths" instead of dealing with the actual evidence: Abd al-Rahman's age at Badr provides a reasonable timeline for Aisha's marriage age to be closer to 18-19. This is not "madness", you think you're some kind of Spartan or what? It is a rational line of inquiry.





