No prob man, but I'm not into philosophy but I have touched upon spirituality throughout the years, both in Buddhism and also Sufi Islam.
I tend to think that extremes often create more solutions than they solve, and that religions were intended for peace and for growing one's understanding of who they are and the world around them.
Speaking of philosopher though, you should read some of the works of Soroush who knows a LOT more than me about Islam and religion.
I tend to think that extremes often create more solutions than they solve, and that religions were intended for peace and for growing one's understanding of who they are and the world around them.
Speaking of philosopher though, you should read some of the works of Soroush who knows a LOT more than me about Islam and religion.
So you guys are saying this (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/...rces/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/058.sbt.html) is made up by Bukhari:
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
What's the point? You are are still going to say that it was the custom back then to sleep with your kaniz without marrying her, sleep with you cousins, etc. There are in fact these verses in Quran. What we disagree about is that you want to justify the actions of a person who claimed to be a Messenger of God by limiting him to a certain time. However, time is not supposed to be an issue for God, and rules of God according to Muslims do not change over time. You keep mentioning satellite TV for whatever reason, but ignore the fact that you are dressing up Mohammad and reselling it when Akhoonds' version has miserably failed and wont' work anymore.
As for those few quotes by Thinkpad about why Ayesheh was older by a few years, all those have been refuted. Like the one about not being in a war under 15. That was for men, not women. She was Mohammad's wide and she would travel with him. Also, women had the role of attending to the injured and not fighting. I know Roozbeh thinks that it just doesn't matter even if she was six, but the reason others are fighting this issue is because it is unacceptable to them if she was six, like Thinkpad.
The problem is that when you have to write pages and pages to justify many issues, at the end you should ask yourself why there are all these issues. Just as in today that religion is a tool to gain power and ride other people, it was much worse back then.
Thinkpad says that Quran says that only those who started a war agianst Mohammad would have their opposite hand and leg cut off. I, like may others, ask why could not he just kill them (assuming that is acceptable to you), why did he have to torture them like that? Roozbeh's response does not offer any evidence that this is how Arabs used to kill others. Hitler put people in gas chambers and burned them. According to Roozbeh, that's not acceptable because it was less than 100 years ago. Mohammad cut people's opposite hand and leg, took out their eyes, and let them die slowly. Well, that's OK, because it was 1400 years ago. I think people felt the same pain back then. Fathers, mothers and kids loves each other just like today. Killing someone's mother, father and kids 1400 years, and especially in a crule and inhumane way would be as painful as today. You would think that God and his Messenger should have known that. You guys write about these killings as if you are detached from your emotions. As if people did not feel pain back then. God and his Messenger should not be like that. I prefer to go to hell than accept actions of such God and his Messenger. See you all there.
As for those few quotes by Thinkpad about why Ayesheh was older by a few years, all those have been refuted. Like the one about not being in a war under 15. That was for men, not women. She was Mohammad's wide and she would travel with him. Also, women had the role of attending to the injured and not fighting. I know Roozbeh thinks that it just doesn't matter even if she was six, but the reason others are fighting this issue is because it is unacceptable to them if she was six, like Thinkpad.
The problem is that when you have to write pages and pages to justify many issues, at the end you should ask yourself why there are all these issues. Just as in today that religion is a tool to gain power and ride other people, it was much worse back then.
Thinkpad says that Quran says that only those who started a war agianst Mohammad would have their opposite hand and leg cut off. I, like may others, ask why could not he just kill them (assuming that is acceptable to you), why did he have to torture them like that? Roozbeh's response does not offer any evidence that this is how Arabs used to kill others. Hitler put people in gas chambers and burned them. According to Roozbeh, that's not acceptable because it was less than 100 years ago. Mohammad cut people's opposite hand and leg, took out their eyes, and let them die slowly. Well, that's OK, because it was 1400 years ago. I think people felt the same pain back then. Fathers, mothers and kids loves each other just like today. Killing someone's mother, father and kids 1400 years, and especially in a crule and inhumane way would be as painful as today. You would think that God and his Messenger should have known that. You guys write about these killings as if you are detached from your emotions. As if people did not feel pain back then. God and his Messenger should not be like that. I prefer to go to hell than accept actions of such God and his Messenger. See you all there.
ardesheer..i think the point you're missing is that in the grand scheme of things.. it doesn't even matter if muhammed was a prophet or not or if he sinned or not... why?! because if you follow islam the way roozbeh or some other people do which is basically using it for everything that is "good" then it doesn't matter if what inspired them was right or wrong in the first place because the end result is still good!
are you going to argue that developing yourself spiritually and trying to reach self-actualisation is bad?! are you going to argue that treating other people well is wrong?! etc..etc.. so you see, it's the resulting behaviour from this inspiration that you should be looking to correct.. not trying to establish accuracy of events of 1400 years ago!! yes.. almost everything iri is doing is wrong.. and should be condemned.. by muslims, jews, christians and atheists alike.. but if someone is actually got the right idea about life and how it should be lived.. what right has anyone to come and say "you're wrong because the source of your inspiration 1400 years ago is wrong"!?!?! deerouz and roozbeh have both said (i think anyway lol) that there is more than one path to reach the right destination.. i just don't understand why anyone would try to argue the reason behind being on the right path when it's so obvious the path is right anyway!?!? sorry.. it's 6am and i'm getting ready for a 14 hour shift and i only had 2 hour sleep so i might have not put myself across correctly.. but all i'm trying to say it doesn't matter what religion you are.. or if you have none at all.. as long as you understand the main essence of life and what some people call spirituality.. once you do and you're on the right path.. it really doesn't matter what inspired you to be on it at all!! your arguments would make sense if someone was trying to say i want to have sex with a 9 year old because the prophet for my religion said it was ok.. but other then the general.. i don't think anyone here is inclined that way.. and even 2pac says "only god judge me now" so maybe the same thing applies to the guy who lived 1400 years ago in a saudi desert!
are you going to argue that developing yourself spiritually and trying to reach self-actualisation is bad?! are you going to argue that treating other people well is wrong?! etc..etc.. so you see, it's the resulting behaviour from this inspiration that you should be looking to correct.. not trying to establish accuracy of events of 1400 years ago!! yes.. almost everything iri is doing is wrong.. and should be condemned.. by muslims, jews, christians and atheists alike.. but if someone is actually got the right idea about life and how it should be lived.. what right has anyone to come and say "you're wrong because the source of your inspiration 1400 years ago is wrong"!?!?! deerouz and roozbeh have both said (i think anyway lol) that there is more than one path to reach the right destination.. i just don't understand why anyone would try to argue the reason behind being on the right path when it's so obvious the path is right anyway!?!? sorry.. it's 6am and i'm getting ready for a 14 hour shift and i only had 2 hour sleep so i might have not put myself across correctly.. but all i'm trying to say it doesn't matter what religion you are.. or if you have none at all.. as long as you understand the main essence of life and what some people call spirituality.. once you do and you're on the right path.. it really doesn't matter what inspired you to be on it at all!! your arguments would make sense if someone was trying to say i want to have sex with a 9 year old because the prophet for my religion said it was ok.. but other then the general.. i don't think anyone here is inclined that way.. and even 2pac says "only god judge me now" so maybe the same thing applies to the guy who lived 1400 years ago in a saudi desert!
That point was not missed. The whole issue in this thread was that Khomeini's book which is written for the present says that it's OK to sleep with a 9-year old today. I don't have any problem with the way Roozbeh wants to dress up Islam and Mohammad in terms moving with the time. People can read these posts and judge for themselves. That's the point of these posts, so people can see different point of views and decide which one is more logical and makes sense to them. Of course, one can say who cares about these things, and don't judge the past. It does matter, because every 100 years we (as people) forget and we keep going backward when someone comes and uses the religion to get a free ride. You need to get this fake holy stuff out of people's mind and break the taboo of talking about these things. We would not be in this mess if people did not think Mohammad was a Prophet and Hossein was some angle.
True, this is indeed a key principle in the current Islamic beliefs. However muslims could be wrong on this issue. Is this really a requirement that the rules of God should stay the same over thousands of years? How important are these rules to the essense of religious teachings any ways? This is key point of people like Soroush and other religious reformers.
BTW thanks for your posts. This is an important discussion that has been long overdue in the Islamic world. There will be no reform in Islam or any other religion or ideology unless its principles and rules are examined and challenged mercilessly and continuously.
Dear Meehandoost, by 'end' as in Ardesheer's post, I think he meant 'forever'. About my contention that no such requirement exist in Quran, I don't recall any verse to the contrary. Do you know any such reference?
BTW thanks for your posts. This is an important discussion that has been long overdue in the Islamic world. There will be no reform in Islam or any other religion or ideology unless its principles and rules are examined and challenged mercilessly and continuously.
Dear Meehandoost, by 'end' as in Ardesheer's post, I think he meant 'forever'. About my contention that no such requirement exist in Quran, I don't recall any verse to the contrary. Do you know any such reference?
Thinkpad please refer to page# 144-148
then continue reading on how he forced his own step son to divorce his wife for his pleasure. What a prophet
171 gives reference to the womens husband that was killed and then he had sex with her
page 183 gives reference to 29 total women that he was with, through marriage or sigheh
178 calls it
21 official based on majlesi and then all the sighehs
http://www.farhangiran.com/pdf/koorushtamohamad.pdf
To me it seems like that this guy spent more time in bed and chasing various women instead of praying and being with god. Its also interesting that everytime something did not workout for him an ayeh would pop up.
then continue reading on how he forced his own step son to divorce his wife for his pleasure. What a prophet
171 gives reference to the womens husband that was killed and then he had sex with her
page 183 gives reference to 29 total women that he was with, through marriage or sigheh
178 calls it
21 official based on majlesi and then all the sighehs
http://www.farhangiran.com/pdf/koorushtamohamad.pdf
To me it seems like that this guy spent more time in bed and chasing various women instead of praying and being with god. Its also interesting that everytime something did not workout for him an ayeh would pop up.
Thank you for posting this. But you should know the various answers. One is that at the time it was OK to kill someone's husband and take his wife, because that was a custom if you won a war you could take them as Kaniz and slaves, and Mohammad improved it by marrying them. The other answer is that, you are wrong it didn't happen and he did not have these many wives, and Ayesheh was an adult, etc. However, they cannot destroy these history books, because they use them when they want to use a Hdith to their advantage and they just have to say that those references that I cited about Ayesheh's age are not accurate. It's a typical pick-and-choose when it serves them.
If this is your way of diverting from what you said then you are not here in good faith for a debate. You indicated he never murdered anyones husband and had sex with them. I put proof in front of you that he did. Now you can ATTEMPT to refute it with reason or just dodge the question with a basic tactic of saying something like this is not related. No body here is making the waters muddy. If anything its you who is responding with such remarks.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
All your points have been refuted in this article http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm. I know that you think this site is run by Christians and don't want to accept the paper as being good. However, anyone who disagrees with you in essence does not believe in Islam, so you cannot summarily dismiss their points just because they do not agree with you. They have given reasons and "references" in the same books that you are citing why the arguments that Ayesheh was 17 are incorrect. I found one comment you made that she accepted Islam and she must have been at least three because she had to be able to talk and walk kind of funny. I don't think that a three-year can have any religion.
Anyway, the reason your arguments are weak is that it's not only those who do not accept Islam that say Ayesheh was 6 when married and had sex at 9. Many of those that accept this are devout Muslims, including ayatollahs, whether in Iran or Arab countries. If this were a debate between Muslims and non-Muslims, it would be different, but many Muslims "scholars" (ayatollahs) do not agree with you, because the evidence that she was very young is overwhelming based all those books and references that have been cited. You have managed to find a few discrepencies in other areas to do calculations based on her sister's death and difference in age, etc. The text in the books clearly says her age in several places in each book and in 7-8 different books. You are saying the express statements are wrong, because she had to be 15 to be in a war, etc. I do not think that you will convince me and I will convince you, however, it's for others who are being exposed to these facts to decide for themselves. For many years (and still in Iran) people hear about the greatness of their Prophet and Imams. Now they should hear what has been hidden for many many years, because communications were limited. I, for one, had not heard any of this when I was growing up, and only heard about the good things without any references. Thank "real" God for the Internet.
Anyway, the reason your arguments are weak is that it's not only those who do not accept Islam that say Ayesheh was 6 when married and had sex at 9. Many of those that accept this are devout Muslims, including ayatollahs, whether in Iran or Arab countries. If this were a debate between Muslims and non-Muslims, it would be different, but many Muslims "scholars" (ayatollahs) do not agree with you, because the evidence that she was very young is overwhelming based all those books and references that have been cited. You have managed to find a few discrepencies in other areas to do calculations based on her sister's death and difference in age, etc. The text in the books clearly says her age in several places in each book and in 7-8 different books. You are saying the express statements are wrong, because she had to be 15 to be in a war, etc. I do not think that you will convince me and I will convince you, however, it's for others who are being exposed to these facts to decide for themselves. For many years (and still in Iran) people hear about the greatness of their Prophet and Imams. Now they should hear what has been hidden for many many years, because communications were limited. I, for one, had not heard any of this when I was growing up, and only heard about the good things without any references. Thank "real" God for the Internet.
The point is that you should back up your claims with actual suras of the Quran and perhaps their variance of interpretations. I haven't read or heard of such a sura that claims that it's ok to sleep with slaves as you claim, and so I'm asking you to show what in the Quran says this and back it up with different interpretations.
You're talking as if you know God and what God's intentions are. I don't claim to know God or what God is like or could be like, in fact God could, as Hafez and other Persian poets have said, simply be the soul of man cleansed. And so when you claim to know what is or isn't an issue for God, or how he acted in that time, in an absolutist manner, it's both confusing and still doesn't back up how the cultural mores and customs of today should be exactly the same as those of 1000 years ago or those of 1000 years from now.
When I talk about Iranian satellite television from LA, I'm talking about how these channels have become more extremist than IRIB and in fact propogate similar viewpoints as hizbollahis yet to the other end of the spectrum. Hizbollahis say Islam and specifically their own interpretations of Islam are the ONLY path and manner to live. Meanwhile, LA satellite tv says that Islam is the evil religion that needs to be purged from Iran. Iranians don't seem to accept either of these views, and yet many if not most would say that LA satellite television is so bad it makes IRIB look good. In otherwords, I think that the hate that they spew on Islam is just as bad if not worse than the hate hizbollahis spew on modernism and freedom. You seem to be propogating those hateful views just like those such as Reza, Ashtar, and sometimes General seem to propogate the hateful views of IRIB. To me it seems like two sides of the same coin of extremism, and my hope is that Iran becomes a true 100% democracy in the future such that Iranians can replace this coin of extremism for a bagful of moderation that ends up being more valuable and lasts longer.
I'm also not dressing up Mohammad. I simply believe he was a human being who lived in certain time and place with its culture who managed to improve that region's moral and spiritual codes and at the same time gave us an improved manner in which to live, such as in caring for those less fortunate, understanding their suffering, prayer, positive thoughts, the jihad within ourselves, and trying to go beyond our worldly goals and seeing something beyond this life as possible.
What the akhounds have shown isn't Islam but a hateful ideology. It would be like if somebody came to your house with a gun to your head and forced you to go back to MS-Dos of the 1970s, and yet you still had to get your work of the modern day done now. Plus, eventually power corrupts those who abuse it, and so those like Burrito and Poop came about in this context. In addition to this you can add delusionism such as Poop's seeing halos around his head and Burrito's sense of grandeur of standing up to the US when it goes directly against Iran's national intererests, and thus you see an ideology that takes advantage of a religion and peoples' religious beliefs and not the actual religion itself. It would be like claiming that all Shahis are like Haka who wanted to overthrow the mullahs with his jumbojets, and thus in turn, it makes us forget that there are some Shahis who are constitutional monarchists and not like Haka who may simply be a joker on tv or delusional like Poop. Thus, I don't believe seeing the akhounds as a representation of all of that religion is correct or accurate in any manner, especially when they have repeatedly broken the basic tenets of Islam such as not killing innocents or torturing the protesters recently, not to mention rape.
I've googled this and seen that this is a controversy and not accepted as fact as to whether she was 9 or 15 when she was Mohammad's wife. I personally don't put much credit in “sayings” and “divinations” outside of the Quran, since they have themselves been biased and even been discredited by others, and thus I look at the Quran as providing the most accurate description of history on this regard. In this manner, I still don't think there's a Sura in the Quran that tells us what her exact age was at the time of marriage. It's quite possible she was 9 but also quite possible she was much older. So far we only know as fact that she was Muhammad's wife, and that Muhammad was a leader who was regarded as a Prophet by Muslims, followers of the religion Islam started in Arabia.
However, what we do know as a fact not necessarily based on Islam but on cultural history of the region, including Iran, and perhaps of the world as a whole, is that only recently has the age of consent become 18 worldwide, and that in most places around the world the age of consent was whenever a person had achieved puberty and was able to bear a child. And thus, it's quite possible that people all around the world at that time had sex in their pre-teens or early teens, even among males, as seen by the Jewish festival of Bar-Mitzvah which celebrates a boy becoming a man. Yet these standards have changed as cultures have changed and grown up so to speak, and thus nowadays the age of consent is not necessarily when a person is physically and adult but at 18 when they are mentally considered adults as well.
Well, I remember that there were pages and pages written by many when Ashtar claimed the IRI is a full democracy. And he claimed that since the Burrito chooses the councils who vet the candidates who can run for the Khobregan that chooses the Burrito, thus Iran is a full democracy. It was flawed logic and most of us knew it. Similarly not, you claim that Islam is a flawed religion because of Muhammad and the Akhounds, when in fact Muhammad himself said that Islam is not about him but about the message, and the akhounds themselves have become anti-Islamic in their actions. And so just like when Ashtar or Reza take an extreme position in supporting the actions and legitimacy of the akhounds, I argue against them, and similarly when you or Ostaad Pooya take a position of extreme hate of Islam, espousing Neocon arguments in a manner similar to the Somalian lady who escaped Somalia to Holland and now lives in the US working for a Neocon think tank who says that Islam encourages female circumcission and mutilation, then just like how I oppose Reza and Ashtar's pro-hizbollahi views I also these Neocon views.
I agree with you that religion is a tool to gain power today and throughout history. But nowadays, unlike the past, modernization is sees as westernization by many Muslim cultures, and thus Islam has been used as a means of fighting this, thus looking backwards and taking giant steps in the wrong direction rather than accepting modernity and making Islam compatible with this day and age.
Plus, I see a reformation happening similar to what happened in Christianity some centuries ago. And yet, in my honest opinion, even Christianity needs to transform and move forward much more such that it accepts that there are a variety of paths of understanding God or ones self.
No, I wouldn't assume anything about what God told Muhammad since I wasn't there to know or hear this. However, what I do sincerely believe is that God tells what he can according to how much they can accept. And so in my view all execution should be put aside, even for the most cruel of killers. And yet if God had told this to Muhammad he most likely couldn't have understood or accepted this as being from God.
When we look at Reza Shah's campaign to stop Iran from crumbling apart when he was the head of Iran's army about 90 years ago, there are stories of how he went to certain rebellious villages and cut off the heads of all the fighting men and piled the heads in a pyramid. He ended up succeeding in stopping Iran, which was on the verge of really collapsing during the end of the Qajar years, from falling apart. Yet this is the manner of fighting that he understood.
So 1000 or 2000 years ago, it's quite possible that the fighting methods were as bad if not worse. I read about how Muhammad's followers at the beginning were killed just for following Islam, and what was done is that one leg was tied to a horse and another to another horse, and they were given an ultimatum to reject Islam. When the continued to not give in, eventually the horses were whipped and ran away, tearing the Muslim into two.
And so when you compare Muhammad to Hitler it reminds me of Glenn Beck comparing Obama to Hitler and calling him a fascist, a vampire, or somebody who wants to kill disabled children. He even said that Obama hates white people when Obama's own mother and the grandparents who raised him were white. So the comparisons don't stick, and are another example of extremism and absolutism, whereby hizbollahis say that Muhammad was God's messenger and made absolutely no mistakes whatsoever and was perfect in every way, shap, and form, while you and Ostad Pooya claim that Muhammad was the equivalent of Hitler and wanted to rape and destroy humanity.
Let me give a very clear example:
Let's assume somebody named Buddy in California decided to make a new political party called Buddyism. The principles of the party are simple:
- give half of your earnings to those who are less fortunate to you
- volunteer in a place like a children's hospital or homeless shelter
- save a pet from the animal shelter from being euthanized
- spread the word and talk to others about our ideology without trying to convert them
- meditate for 10 minutes each day to relieve stress and find some peace within
Now Buddy is a person who believes in the death penalty, and also isn't married yet has kids with 2 different women, and is also now seeing another lady he's in an relationship with. Thus, in today's society in California, his views are the norm of the culture and time.
Buddy claims he had a spiritual awakening one night while meditating and realized that he had to speak out. He claims people are too egotistical and need to help others more, to look at fellow man as a brother rather than a stranger.
Soon enough, Buddy's ideas spread like wildfire. It becomes the most popular political party in California in 10 years time(let's just pretend for now). In the American southwest, from Colorado to the north to Arizona in the south, and California and parts of Oregon to the west, Buddyism becomes the most popular political party.
In 1000 years, Buddyism is still the most powerful political party in the American southwest yet it's become backwards, and the followers still believe they have to live and act like people in California did 1000 ago. And so whenever beginning a conversation, rather than just talk, the word “Duuude” is required. People are by law supposed to surf or wakeboard 3 hours a week in support of the Party.
Now some people obviously become really disenchanted with all this and move to Texas or New York, whereby they start questioning Buddyism. Most people question why it has to be forced and why Buddyism didn't evolve like it needed to over 1000 years. But then there's a few who say that Buddy is a rapist and serial killer since he sodomized women back then, since the view of 1000 years from now may be that promiscuous sex is wrong or disrespectful to women and thus sex can only be done when two people are truly in love. And he's seen as a serial killer since his followers in his party supported the death penalty which is seen as wrong and evil 1000 years from now.
The conversation is now not about how Buddyism needs to change and modernize, to not force people to their views and to adapt to the needs of the modern age. But instead, it becomes about how Buddy is a rapist and killer who is the equivalent of Saddam.
And so my preference is that Islam changes, and becomes updated to today's views and modernity. We have to stop waiting for God to present himself to solve all the problems and do it ourselves. This isn't just the case with Islam but with all religions of course.
I'll give you an example:
Ramadan can mean that you still take a shower in the morning of Ramadan to be clean for work, that you still have gum to not have stinky breath at work, and that you still wash your face during the day to remain clean and in good shape. However, instead of waking up at dawn to have an enormous meal, you could simply eat the same as you always do except skip breakfast and lunch. If you're not able to do this every day, at least do it on Fridays.
And this is just a personal view, of course.
Religion has to become like Linux whereby programmers around the world keep updating it and making it better and better all the time, continuously. Yet it's not even like Microsoft that updates every 2-3 years at best. Islam today is like using an abacus to surf the internet.
My hope is that in a free and democratic Iran, these ideas, as talked about by those like Abdol Karim Soroush and other progressive Muslim thinkers, will end up totally transforming Islam and updating it to today's day and age.
And now for a quote from one of the best Persian poets in history, Rumi:
The Prophet said that God has said,
"I cannot be contained in hallowed places.
Heaven and earth cannot hold Me.
But I am contained by true hearts.
If you seek Me, search in those hearts."
- Rumi, "Mathnawi"
no its not. we are talking about Aisha. We showed counterproof against the claim of 6-9 yrs old. the rebuttal to that was made by ardesheer as "this was ALL refuted" without any backup and he only pointed out one of our 8-9 points.
I am waiting for ardesheer to refute all these points we have made, one by one as he himself proclaimed that they were ALL refuted.
opening a new subject and jumping to another topic isn't going to get any of us anywhere. lets finish one topic before moving to another. its only fair.
I am waiting for ardesheer to refute all these points we have made, one by one as he himself proclaimed that they were ALL refuted.
opening a new subject and jumping to another topic isn't going to get any of us anywhere. lets finish one topic before moving to another. its only fair.
All your points have been refuted in this article http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm. I know that you think this site is run by Christians and don't want to accept the paper as being good. However, anyone who disagrees with you in essence does not believe in Islam, so you cannot summarily dismiss their points just because they do not agree with you. They have given reasons and "references" in the same books that you are citing why the arguments that Ayesheh was 17 are incorrect. I found one comment you made that she accepted Islam and she must have been at least three because she had to be able to talk and walk kind of funny. I don't think that a three-year can have any religion.
Anyway, the reason your arguments are weak is that it's not only those who do not accept Islam that say Ayesheh was 6 when married and had sex at 9. Many of those that accept this are devout Muslims, including ayatollahs, whether in Iran or Arab countries. If this were a debate between Muslims and non-Muslims, it would be different, but many Muslims "scholars" (ayatollahs) do not agree with you, because the evidence that she was very young is overwhelming based all those books and references that have been cited. You have managed to find a few discrepencies in other areas to do calculations based on her sister's death and difference in age, etc. The text in the books clearly says her age in several places in each book and in 7-8 different books. You are saying the express statements are wrong, because she had to be 15 to be in a war, etc. I do not think that you will convince me and I will convince you, however, it's for others who are being exposed to these facts to decide for themselves. For many years (and still in Iran) people hear about the greatness of their Prophet and Imams. Now they should hear what has been hidden for many many years, because communications were limited. I, for one, had not heard any of this when I was growing up, and only heard about the good things without any references. Thank "real" God for the Internet.
Anyway, the reason your arguments are weak is that it's not only those who do not accept Islam that say Ayesheh was 6 when married and had sex at 9. Many of those that accept this are devout Muslims, including ayatollahs, whether in Iran or Arab countries. If this were a debate between Muslims and non-Muslims, it would be different, but many Muslims "scholars" (ayatollahs) do not agree with you, because the evidence that she was very young is overwhelming based all those books and references that have been cited. You have managed to find a few discrepencies in other areas to do calculations based on her sister's death and difference in age, etc. The text in the books clearly says her age in several places in each book and in 7-8 different books. You are saying the express statements are wrong, because she had to be 15 to be in a war, etc. I do not think that you will convince me and I will convince you, however, it's for others who are being exposed to these facts to decide for themselves. For many years (and still in Iran) people hear about the greatness of their Prophet and Imams. Now they should hear what has been hidden for many many years, because communications were limited. I, for one, had not heard any of this when I was growing up, and only heard about the good things without any references. Thank "real" God for the Internet.
do you see my points? i want you to thoroughly, succinctly and point by point, write your refutation under my reasonings. i hope you can do that instead of sending me off to another site.
The fact you are getting this from a hostile source (missionary site) speaks volumes. I am not refusing the fact that in bukhari it says she was 6, but you have to accept that the same bukhari shows us she was not 6 or 9, but older. And doing the calculation (hesaabe 2+2=4) also tells us she was older. I find it ironic however that a missionary site is attacking islam with such a logic, when Mary mother of Jesus was 10-12 when she had him! but I digress.
Below are the points we made. You said they were ALL refuted. Make a logical, historical, or mathematical argument against each point and let us know.
Thanks,
• Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least fifteen in 622 CE.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
• Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am’s son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
• Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least twelve in 622 CE.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
• According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus twelve when Muhammad married at fifty-two.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
• According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha 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, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
• According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha – if she got married in 1 AH (after Migration to Medina) or 2 AH – was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
• Ardesheer, please provide your refutation of this point here.
a friendly word of advice, if you are looking for the truth, its serves you best that you look at both sides of argument, and that you look at unbiased sources. Reading missionary sites who have a vested interest against islam only serves one purpose: ra-affirming already existing prejudices against islam. Many times I have read missionary pamphlets and articles, only to findout later that they were half quoting a verse, or quoting out of context or even mistranslating (in malice).
Last edited: