It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did prophet Muhammed (pbuh) marry Aisha at such young age (9)?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Yes, it is open for debate because the story was reported 200 years after Muhammad died. How credible do you think people 200 years removed from someone's life would be in reporting a story? How much do you know about George Washington's personal life? After all, we are around 200 years removed from his life.




posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

There is no proof, link or information that supports the idea that the Saudi Royal family are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I have no clue where you read that mate, or what your source is.

And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.

Non-muslim, native arabic speakers with a strong knowledge in arabic literature have tried to reproduce their own version or Quranic verses in an attempt to match the level of the Quran, but failed miserably.

You can believe all you want whether your god is the same or different from any other religion, the fact remains that Islam is still an Abrahamic faith and Muslims will continue to believe that there is only one god.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: LABTECH767

There is no proof, link or information that supports the idea that the Saudi Royal family are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I have no clue where you read that mate, or what your source is.

And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.

Non-muslim, native arabic speakers with a strong knowledge in arabic literature have tried to reproduce their own version or Quranic verses in an attempt to match the level of the Quran, but failed miserably.

You can believe all you want whether your god is the same or different from any other religion, the fact remains that Islam is still an Abrahamic faith and Muslims will continue to believe that there is only one god.


Who was Uthman, and why is Uthman important to the story of the Quran?

Nope, just because you descend from Abraham, which much of the world does by now, doesn't mean you follow the same God as Abraham.Ishmael didn't follow the same God, Esau really didn't follow the same God, and the Arabs as known in the Bible, certainly did not not follow the same God as Abraham.

I can prove this by your own Quran....Surat Ya-Sin 36:6

That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware.


Pardon me, but you guys say that you are an Abrahamic faith, that Ishmael the son of Abraham is your forefather....and then you say that Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt Adam's ka'aba....

But here Mohammed is saying that your forefathers were not warned....and yet Abraham and Ishmael were your forefathers????

This is called Cognitive Dissonance, to hold two contradictory beliefs. Either the forefathers were warned because it is an Abrahamic religion....or the Quran is wrong in saying the forefathers were not warned.

Which is it?

ETA: Let me clarify the question. IF you claim that the Arabs descended from Abraham and Ishmael, and Abraham and Ishmael were warners...then it is impossible for the Arabs to not have been warned.

So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?





edit on 4/30/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.

You can show us contemporary evidence of what you have just said? I noted the word "DEFINiTELY" in your above post and was surprised that you have contemporary evidence. Could you show us your contemporary definite historical evidence?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?

Have been following your posts with a smile as to how you school your pupils. Well said and as usual very informative.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.



Krazyshot I would ask a question as to the legitimacy of this claim but I know you wont back it up, I expect we are supposed to rely on your word.

As for the prophet of islam, well i wasnt aware it was debatable, his own people claim that he married a child



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ElectricFeel
The enemies of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) insulted Muhammed with all kinds of insults, but never did they call him a peadophile. How come?

The main reason is that we can't apply contemporary sensibilities to the sixth century. Child marriages at that time were quite common for a number of reasons… and, in fact, was often encouraged.

Even the Catholic church sanctioned marriages with girls as young as 10 at the time.


The Catholic church, who have been justifiably raked over the coals, insulted and held to public ridicule, probably not to the degree they should be even yet
Compared to the man that Muslims are taught is the greatest prophet on earth and should be emulated.

The comparison is, what do you think would be a nice way to put it?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.

You can show us contemporary evidence of what you have just said? I noted the word "DEFINiTELY" in your above post and was surprised that you have contemporary evidence. Could you show us your contemporary definite historical evidence?


Ok. The word definitely was a bit of hyperbole. I will admit that, so how about "highly assumed" instead?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Read the whole thread; I've already posted evidence of this. Why you'd think I wouldn't back my claims up is ludicrous. I'm ALWAYS willing to provide a link for my claims.

That being said, as I already told another poster in this thread, I had no idea that people would want to debate that point as I just thought it was common knowledge. Clearly, I'm not surprised YOU don't agree with it (I'm kind of curious what ages you think Joe and Mary were when they were married actually), but I really wasn't trying to debate some Christian point in a Muslim thread. I'm trying to learn more about the Muslim faith so I can debate that and not so much debate Christianity. If you want to discuss this further, make a thread. You know I'll be along shortly.
edit on 30-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.


Muslims often claim that the manuscript of the Qur'an housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey is one of the oldest sources. Muslims say it dates from around 650 A.D. There is an insurmountable problem with this. This document is written in Kufic (also known as al-Khatt al-Kufi) script. Coins in the British Museum show that the first coins using the Kufic script date from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and after Muhammad's days was the Jazm script. Source= www.bibleprobe.com...

Something does not add correctly does it?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I certainly find it dubious that Muslims don't let outsiders test their religious artifacts for authenticity.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ElectricFeel


I believe in God but My god is not and I will swear this, my god is not the god of Islam, he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus who is his son and was Crucified despite 600 year's later a new religions claims he was not.


Agreed, they are NOT the same God.

Mo was visited by a fallen principality.

Mo was freaked out by his encounter and wasn't sure what it was that he saw until his wife took him to his cousin Waraqah who told him it was Gabriel.


Perplexed by this new experience, Muhammad made his way to home where he was consoled by his wife Khadijah, who also took him to her Ebionite cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal. Waraqah was familiar with Jewish and Christian scriptures. Islamic tradition holds that Waraqah, upon hearing the description, testified to Muhammad's prophethood,[2][10] and convinced Muhammad that the revelation was from God.[11] Waraqah said: "O my nephew! What did you see?" When Muhammad told him what had happened to him, Waraqah replied: "This is Namus (meaning Gabriel) that Allah sent to Moses.


The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was never in doubt when He or his Angels appeared before man.
He always reassured and comforted with "fear not".
Abraham, Moses or any of the people to whom the One True God appeared were never confused with what they encountered. The one True God is NOT a God of confusion.

If it was the one True God who Mo encountered there would have been NO confusion.

SOURCE



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Don't Catholics also have similar artifacts locked away?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Nope, just because you descend from Abraham, which much of the world does by now, doesn't mean you follow the same God as Abraham.Ishmael didn't follow the same God, Esau really didn't follow the same God, and the Arabs as known in the Bible, certainly did not not follow the same God as Abraham.



This point was never raised by myself, so if you are attempting to put words in my mouth, it is a weak attempt. I did not even supply my reasoning for why Islam is an Abrahamic faith – now I present the reasoning:

The fact that Muslims believe in Abraham as a Prophet, who is a central figure in the Quranic scripture, who also worshipped the same god as Muslims is more than enough to constitute Islam and Muslims believers as being part of the Abrahamic faith. The majority of the world stand by me on this, so let's not argue of an established point.

''An Abrahamic religion is a religion whose people think Abraham was an important person. The best known Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.’’






Pardon me, but you guys say that you are an Abrahamic faith, that Ishmael the son of Abraham is your forefather....and then you say that Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt Adam's ka'aba....

But here Mohammed is saying that your forefathers were not warned....and yet Abraham and Ishmael were your forefathers????

This is called Cognitive Dissonance, to hold two contradictory beliefs. Either the forefathers were warned because it is an Abrahamic religion....or the Quran is wrong in saying the forefathers were not warned.

Which is it?

ETA: Let me clarify the question. IF you claim that the Arabs descended from Abraham and Ishmael, and Abraham and Ishmael were warners...then it is impossible for the Arabs to not have been warned.

So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?




But I did not claim that the Arabs are descended from Abraham and Ishmael! But it is OK because I understand your question, it seems that you have not studied the subject well enough though, and you have only taken shallow steps into Quranic studies and history. I have studied a bit, and hence my response to your question will be long, but it is worth it to keep an account somewhere here on ATS for future references.

I will post my response shortly (in parts), as you raised a good question.
edit on 30-4-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ElectricFeel
The enemies of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) insulted Muhammed with all kinds of insults, but never did they call him a peadophile. How come?

The main reason is that we can't apply contemporary sensibilities to the sixth century. Child marriages at that time were quite common for a number of reasons… and, in fact, was often encouraged.

Even the Catholic church sanctioned marriages with girls as young as 10 at the time.
You're ATS owner right ?

Freedom of speech is allowed here to a level that the prophet of 1 billion people can be called peadophile ? muslims can be called animals ? and islam a $h!tty religion ?

Hmm . insulting back would for sure reduce me to their level . so go on .

By calling our prophet a peadophile , he doesn't become one . by calling me an animal , i don't become one either .

So insult us till your hair turns gray


He became one when he consummated marriage with that young girl.
Nothing you can say will ever change that.
Nothing you can do will ever change that.
Admitting the truth will go a long way to making people believe in your humanity.
Your prophet made war.
Your prophet lied cheated and stole on his way to power.
Your prophet was also a political leader as well as a military leader.
Of the three things he was, Military leader and political leader and religious leader, why do you only embrace the religious leader when he did everything contrary to that religion while being a military and political leader? Could it be that his actions as the other two made the third hypocritical and preposterous?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You are the one who said it was an Abrahamic faith because that is how people think it is. I put nothing into your mouth.

I gave you evidence from the Quran as to why it is impossible. In fact, the Quran is a cheap rip off of the Bible and gets very fundamental things wrong. We can go through all of them but it would take too much time and space. The point is, if you call it an Abrahamic faith then you are going to have to prove it is.

I used the Quranic verse to point out one contradiction in a book that Muslims claim have no contradictions at all.

Either Abraham and Ishmael were warners and so therefore the forefathers were warned, or the Quran was wrong.

But Islam also accepts the claim of Zoroastrians because they believe also in one god. So it really doesn't matter which god as long as it is one god, right?

Zoroastrianism is not the religion of Abraham or Ishmael or Isaac and Jacob, so how do you reconcile Zoroastrianism within that? And you guys claim there are 900 prophets that you are to know, so do you know the 900 prophets?

Zoroastrianism isn't an Abrahamic faith, but you accept it as well. No contradiction?

You don't have to make the claim because we all know that it is the basis for Islam, do you really think we are ignorant of Islam?

The original question, were Abraham and Ishmael the forefathers who were warners or did the Quran get it wrong?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.


Muslims often claim that the manuscript of the Qur'an housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey is one of the oldest sources. Muslims say it dates from around 650 A.D. There is an insurmountable problem with this. This document is written in Kufic (also known as al-Khatt al-Kufi) script. Coins in the British Museum show that the first coins using the Kufic script date from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and after Muhammad's days was the Jazm script. Source= www.bibleprobe.com...

Something does not add correctly does it?



Which is why the person I asked about Uthman didn't respond. Uthman was responsible for the Quran to be in the form it is today, however, Uthman went around to where he could find Muslims and took their Quranic verses and burned many of them.

The reason that some do not want to read the Hadiths is because they know the errors the Quran contains, so they make the claim that they are Quranic only, however, they don't know why the Quran contradicts itself in so many places.

According to this Hadith

The Hadith records that Muhammad allowed different versions of the Qur'an. Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours". So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!". On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514)


Different Quranic verses in the time of Mohammed. So there can't be one single Quran that is clear. Mohammed didn't even order the Quran to be compiled.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ... Therefore I (Umar) suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" ... Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 509)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

And in reply to my post...Abu Bakr was the father of Aisha.

The truth about Aisha, was that her father and Mohammed actually took each others daughters to have sex with.

And the other truth about Aisha, she was only 18 years-old when he died while they were having sex. She had been conditioned by Mohammed, and after the lost at The Battle of the Camel.

Her father, Abu Bakr, became the first caliph and this is where the fight between Shia and Sunni began, Aisha wanted Uthman to be caliph, but the Shia wanted Ali. So she lost. But look at her age, it is apparent that after 9 years of being a sex slave to this man, brainwashed into believing he was a prophet, actually spent the rest of her life locked away under house arrest.

It was very political, Abu Bakr claimed to be the companion of Mohammed,therefore the right to be caliph. The Shia wanted Ali, so Uthman burned Qurans so the Shia would not have any claim to Mohammed's rule of descent.
Here is a good link to discover the Hadiths that explain why the Quran is the way it is.

Uthman didn't do a very good job, he got mixed up a lot.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Read the whole thread; I've already posted evidence of this. Why you'd think I wouldn't back my claims up is ludicrous. I'm ALWAYS willing to provide a link for my claims.

That being said, as I already told another poster in this thread, I had no idea that people would want to debate that point as I just thought it was common knowledge. Clearly, I'm not surprised YOU don't agree with it (I'm kind of curious what ages you think Joe and Mary were when they were married actually), but I really wasn't trying to debate some Christian point in a Muslim thread. I'm trying to learn more about the Muslim faith so I can debate that and not so much debate Christianity. If you want to discuss this further, make a thread. You know I'll be along shortly.


Truthfully KS I didnt say I disagreed, I just wanted evidence. It was common practice for teenagers to marry young in A&NE culture
I just haven't seen any evidence to what you are saying,never, ever

But I have noticed you are happy generalising everything



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You are the one who said it was an Abrahamic faith because that is how people think it is. I put nothing into your mouth.



All I said was ''..the fact remains that Islam is still an Abrahamic faith..''

And then before I even elaborated about Islam being an Abrahamic faith you said ''IF you claim that the Arabs descended from Abraham and Ishmael, and Abraham and Ishmael ...'' and ''Nope, just because you descend from Abraham, which much of the world does by now, doesn't mean you follow the same God as Abraham...''

So where did I say anything to allude to any of the points you made? You are putting words in my mouth whether you want to do it on the sly, not admit it.. whatever.

THEN I gave you the actual reason as to why Islam is an Abrahamic faith. End of story, if you choose to accept my explanation (The widely accepted one) or not that is entirely up to you I won't discuss that point any further.


The point is, if you call it an Abrahamic faith then you are going to have to prove it is.


I have already proved it, now go and bother someone else with this nonsense.





Zoroastrianism is not the religion of Abraham or Ishmael or Isaac and Jacob, so how do you reconcile Zoroastrianism within that? And you guys claim there are 900 prophets that you are to know, so do you know the 900 prophets?


I can see that you are just bursting with questions, why don't you go ahead and start a thread? You are asking too many things that require deep attention and analysis. Studying scripture, like many things in life, is not an overnight thing. You have already digressed from the threads original topic, so calm down please.




Either Abraham and Ishmael were warners and so therefore the forefathers were warned, or the Quran was wrong. The original question, were Abraham and Ishmael the forefathers who were warners or did the Quran get it wrong?


The short answer is no, they were not the forefathers or the warners of those people (the Arabs) from the verse that you quoted from in the Quran and here is why:

Before I begin, I want to express my disappointment in your inability to quote verses with context. Please in future when you quote a verse, make sure it has some added context with it as it usually relates to another piece of text that either precedes or follows it.

Surat Ya-Sin 36:3 Indeed you, [O Muhammad], are from among the messengers,
Surat Ya-Sin 36:4 On a straight path.
Surat Ya-Sin 36:5 [This is] a revelation of the Exalted in Might, the Merciful,
Surat Ya-Sin 36:6 That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware.

Now, this surah is basically talking about how the Prophet is among those of the messengers (specifically the chief among all messengers sent by Allah as this surah is entitled Ya-sin = Yasin = Chief) and that he was chosen to restore the faith among those in the Arab peninsula who did not receive any prophets previously. By the time Muhammad came into his prophethood, the Arabs had never received a prophet sent specifically to them, from them, for them, speaking their language (Arabic). These Arabs were not previously warned, and thus not on the straight path to Islam as they worshipped idols, and surrounded the Ka’ba with 360 idols around it, until the Prophet Muhammaed PBUH removed them all as idolism is strictly forbidden in Islam.


edit on 30-4-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join