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

originally posted by: WarminIndy

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

The part about being warned by the ‘forefathers’ or those that came before the Arabs, is referenced in other verses. That no prophet was ever sent to the Arabian Peninsula before the coming of Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), who was the last and final prophet sent to all of mankind. Allah, the Most High, informs us that the Arabs were never sent a prophet in His statement:

Or say they: “He (Muhammad) has fabricated it?” Nay, it is the truth from your Lord, so that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you [O Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)] in order that they may be guided.” [Surah As-Sajdah, Verse 3]

Allah also says: “In order that you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are heedless.” [Surah Yasin, Verse 7]

Ibn Juraij said: “…a messenger from Allah the Mighty, the Majestic, didn’t come to them or to their forefathers.” And a similar saying was attributed to Qataada. (Refer to the Tafseer of Ibn Jarir, Vol. 22 page 150)

And thus you see that those in the Arab peninsula where Muhammed was residing, were not warned of the message carried by the messengers of Islam because their forefathers were also not warned.

Now to address your question further – let us look at who are these ‘people’ whose forefathers were not warned? And the great misconception that the Arabs are descendants of the Prophet Ishmael son of Abraham.

You really want to believe that Abraham and his son, Ishmael, represent the forefathers of these people (Those residing in the Arab peninsula) that were not warned. When I made absolutely no assertion that those people (the Arabs) were descended from Abraham or Ishmael .... and so you ask how could the Arabs not be warned if Abraham was a messenger of Allah?

Well first of all, who said the Arabs were descended from Ishmael???

I did not utter those words in this thread, that is a deeply incorrect statement if we are to look at this from the Quran’s perspective -

The Quran does not make any claims that Prophet Ishmael was the progenitor of the Arab race (the people mentioned in the verse you brought forward), or the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) forefathers. Since this is not taught by the Quran, it cannot be a belief sanctioned by the Quran.

Quranic evidence seems to negate ties of lineage between Prophet Ishmael and the forefathers of Prophet Muhammad. The Quran repeatedly informs the reader, that the Prophet's forefathers were never the recipient of any guidance, or warning (32:3; 34:44; 28:46-47; 6.157; 34:42; 36:2-6; 43:20-21; 62.2). I will elaborate on these verses in a just moment. This statement should be understood with the Quranic position, that Prophet Ishmael was given scripture (6:89) and must have at least inherited the scrolls (Suhuf), or the teachings of Prophet Abraham (87:18-19). If, as commonly believed, the Prophet Muhammed’s forefathers were tied to Prophet Ishmael by lineage, then it is a plausible question to ask why guidance was not passed down to them, as you are suggesting in your question.

originally posted by: borntowatch

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

And I gave the links for Jewish marriages, women could not enter into contracts unless she was fully capable of understanding, and marriage was and still is a contract.

She signed the Ketubah, which means that was to negotiate the terms contained. This was the first phase of the marriage, that is why the Bible says "Joseph was her espoused husband", because then, and now, they were not technically married, they had agreed on a future date for marriage.

Mary could not enter into a contract unless she was intellectually capable of understanding marriage. The rabbis simply would not agree to it if they felt she had limited understanding.

They also could not have sexual relationships during the espousal period, that is why the accusation of adultery was presented. I would have to say though, a 16 year-old girl then was probably very much more mature than girls of the same age today, because life was so rough. As another poster commented, the infant mortality rate was very high then, so it would have seemed reasonable to them in those days for younger women to marry.

However, it could not have been done unless she was considered a woman mature enough to enter into the contractual marriage. That much is abundantly clear. And Joseph could not be too much older, because the point in Jewish marriages is that the husband and wife were to be compatible in all matters. Were they not intellectually compatible, it would not have been agreed to by the rabbis.

Here is a case of a Jewish marriage in Babylon

The marriage contract of Mibtachiah [the bride] and As-Hor [the groom] began with a declaration of marriage by As-Hor to Mibtachiah’s father. “I came to thy house for thee to give me thy daughter, Mibtachiah, to wife; she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever.” Following this declaration of betrothal, all terms of the marriage contract were written in detail. As-Hor paid Machseiah, the father, five shekels, Persian standard, as a mohar for his daughter. Besides, Mibtachiah received a gift of 65 1/2 shekels from As-Hor. From this we gather that the mohar that fathers received for their daughters was then merely a nominal payment, the formality of an older custom.According to the marriage contract, Mibtachiah had equal rights with her husband. She had her own property which she could bequeath as she pleased, and she had the right to pronounce a sentence of divorce against As-Hor, even as he had the right to pronounce it against her. All she had to do was to appear before the court of the community and declare that she had developed an aversion to As-Hor. We do not know to what degree the equality of rights enjoyed by Jewish women of Elephantine was due to Jewish or to Persian-Babylonian law.

She had the right to her own property and equal rights with her husband. This doesn't seem to be very anti-woman to me. But to make deals regarding property, she had to be old enough.

Mary simply had to be old enough to intellectually understand. At 13 years-old, that would have been too young to enter into a marriage, only if it were arranged then she would still live with her parents until she was old enough. I believe that would place her at the high end of being a teenager, because she was fully intellectually aware of the purpose of God, it is expressed in the Magnificat.

Even then, God still had to get her permission.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

She was mature enough to understand. I think it is assumed that men back then just ran around willy-nilly marrying young girls right and left. There were many restrictions from the rabbis. Whatever the agreement was between the parents, if she said no, then that was it, she said no.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?

It is the style of the Quran to draw a clear connection of lineage, if one exists. The reader of the Quran is advised to note how many times the term ‘Children of Israel (Jacob)’ (Arabic: Bani Israel) is mentioned and this is an observation which simply cannot be overlooked. There is no reference to the term 'Bani Ishmael' in the Quran!!!

Prophetic genealogy has been mentioned numerous times in the Quran. No connections have been drawn between Prophet Muhammad's forefathers and those of the previous prophets.

Another important point to note from a Quran's perspective, is that God does not guide a community exclusively based on lineage. He sends guidance to whomsoever He wills.

There is no mention of Prophet Muhammad being the seed of Prophet Ishmael, or any of the previous prophets except Adam (As logically we are all descendants of Adam, as prescribed in the Quran)

It is to be noted, that Prophet Joseph informs he has followed the religion of his forefathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 12:38.

In verse 29:27, there is mention of the seed (Arabic: Dhurriyyati) of Prophets Isaac and Jacob. Yet again, there is no mention of Prophet Muhammad!

In verse 57:26, the seed (Arabic: Dhurriyyati) of Prophets Noah and Abraham are mentioned. Names of the seed are not given though.

However, in verses 6:83-86, the seeds of Prophet Abraham are comprehensively defined and include: Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Zachariya, John, Jesus, Elias, Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot. Again - Prophet Muhammad is not mentioned amongst them.

Therefore the Quran attests that no warner nor scriptures have ever come to the forefathers of the Prophet Muhammed (Born in Mecca, the Arab peninsula)

However, when reference is made to Prophet Muhammad and his forefathers, the following adage is reiterated by the Quran:

…That no warners nor scriptures have ever come to their people…

028:046-47

"And you were not on this side of the mountain when We called, but a mercy from your Lord that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you, that they may be mindful. And were it not that there should befall them a disaster for what their hands have sent before, then they should say: Our Lord! why did you not send to us a messenger so that we should have followed Thy communications and been of the believers!"

032:003

"Or do they say: He has forged it? Nay! it is the truth from your Lord that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, that they may follow the right direction"

034:044

"And We have not given them any books which they read, nor did We send to them before you a warner"

Please note the argument in the next couple of verses. It is clear that no scripture ever came to the people of Prophet Muhammad, otherwise, they would have argued that they would have followed it and be better guided.

006:157

Or less you should say: If the Book had been revealed to us, we would certainly have been better guided than they, so indeed there has come to you clear proof from your Lord, and guidance and mercy. Who then is more unjust than he who rejects God's communications and turns away from them? We will reward those who turn away from Our communications with an evil chastisement because they turned away.

035:042

"And they swore by God with the strongest of their oaths that if there came to them a warner they would be better guided than any of the nations; but when a warner came to them, it increased them in nothing but aversion"

036.002-6

"I swear by the Quran full of wisdom, Most surely you are one of the messengers, On a right way. A revelation of the Mighty, the Merciful. That you may warn a people whose fathers were not warned, so they are heedless"

043:020-21

And they say: If the Beneficent God had pleased, we should never have worshipped them. They have no knowledge of this; they only lie. Or have We given them a book before it so that they hold fast to it?

Revelation was clearly given to Prophet Ishmael (6:89). So why has this not been passed down through his seed and inherited by Prophet Muhammad's forefathers if the claim of lineage is true?

062:002 "It is He Who has sent amongst the gentiles a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest error"

It is also important to note, that many believers and messengers of God have spoken about their heritage from their forefathers, or their predecessors. For example, we note the people of Thamud, mentioned as successors of the people of Aad (7:72-73). We note a 'believer' within the Pharaoh's court, who reminded his people of Prophet Joseph in times gone by (40:34) and Prophet Joseph, whilst in prison, clearly indicates, that he followed the ways of his 'fathers', Prophets Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (12:38).

Furthermore, we note Prophet Abraham, who left his legacy to his sons, as did Prophet Jacob when he said "...Oh my sons" Surely God has chosen for you the religion and do not die except as Muslims" (2:132).

On the contrary, the Quran clearly elucidates repeatedly that no warners ever came to the predecessors of Prophet Muhammad or his community.

#Final notes:

In the Quran, the Arabs are generally referred to as 'A'rab' (urban or rural Arab dwellers), distinguished at times as tent, desert dwellers implying nomadic bedouin behaviour (badi -33:20) and in one verse specifically identified as 'Quraish' (106:1).

However, they are never referred to as the 'Children of Prophet Ishmael', (pbuh) or Prophet Abraham. (pbuh) Furthermore, there is no hint of any connection in lineage. (33:20; 48:11; 48:16; 49:14; 9:101; 9:120; 9:90;97;98-99).

#Conclusion

I have stuck to the confines of the scripture within the Quran itself, there is no need to go beyond it and find other sources of information as we are explicitly discussing the topic from the perspective of the Quran. You brought forward the verse Surat Ya-Sin 36:6 directly from the Quran, however the statement you put forward regarding that verse was incorrect as I have already proved, and NOT of the Quran.

There is no unequivocal supporting evidence from the Quran that the Arabs (those people that were not warned) were descendants of Prophet Abraham via Prophet Ishmael. On the contrary, I have argued that the Quran indicates otherwise.

There is no support in the Quran for the belief that the Arabs descended from the lineage of Prophet Abraham via Prophet Ishmael.

You have been proved wrong. You are welcome to study the Quran and contest the verses I have presented, you will have a hard time doing so.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You guys just love logical arguments, so we will take this very slowly again. LOGIC

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

Logical argument from me...
1: Islam teaches that Ishmael is a prophet.
2: Islam teaches that Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs (now Muslims)
3: Islam teaches that a prophet is a messenger.
4: Islam teaches that a messenger is a warner.
5: The Quran says that no warner came to the Arabs.
6: See number 2.

Logically, the Quran must be wrong.

ETA: Decided to stick with only the logical steps in the argument.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

2: Islam teaches that Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs (now Muslims)

WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!! Does islam teach this?????????????

I just proved you wrong, accept it and move on.

Yes Ishmael was a Prophet and a Muslim, as was his father Prophet Abraham. They are NOT the forefathers of the arabs according to the Quran.

END of story mate. Let it go.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


You guys just love logical arguments, so we will take this very slowly again. LOGIC

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

Logical argument from me...
1: Islam teaches that Ishmael is a prophet.
2: Islam teaches that Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs (now Muslims)
3: Islam teaches that a prophet is a messenger.
4: Islam teaches that a messenger is a warner.
5: The Quran says that no warner came to the Arabs.
6: See number 2.

Logically, the Quran must be wrong.

ETA: Decided to stick with only the logical steps in the argument.

You are LYING. Your entire argument is based on your statement at point 2.

It is wrong. You can stop lying now.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

2: Islam teaches that Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs (now Muslims)

WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!! Does islam teach this?????????????

I just proved you wrong, accept it and move on.

Yes Ishmael was a Prophet and a Muslim, as was his father Prophet Abraham. They are NOT the forefathers of the arabs according to the Quran.

END of story mate. Let it go.

Prophet Ishmael

No warner?

(2:125) of chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow):

Sahih International: And [mention] when We made the House a place of return for the people and [a place of] security. And take, [O believers], from the standing place of Abraham a place of prayer. And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], "Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer]."

But you see, because Muslims got caught in that lie about Ishmael, they then had to fix it.

It sill does not negate the fact that Islam teaches that Ishmael was a prophet and a warner, and built the ka'aba with Abraham....soooooo a warner was sent to the forefathers.

I now gave you two verses from the Quran that contradict.

In fact...don't you say Adam is also a prophet (warner)?

Haqislam

Prophet Adam (Alayhis-salam) was the first prophet to bring Allah’s message to mankind, so that we might know how to worship Allah and how to seek forgiveness for our mistakes. This message was completed to perfection by Allah through his last prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Logically again, let's look at this slowly....

1:Adam is called a prophet (warner)
2:Abraham is called a prophet (warner)
3:Ishmael is called a prophet (warner)
4:Adam was the first warner, before there were Arabs.
5:Abraham and Ishmael were warners while there were Arabs.
6: The Quran says no warners came to the forefathers.
7: See number 5.

Logically, the Quran is still wrong.

Begs another question....

a reply to: WarminIndy

Follow up...

Since Abraham and Ishmael were given the command to

And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], "Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer]."

Does that mean the Arabs were already performing Tawaf and staying there for worship...in the time of Abraham?

Tawaf (Arabic: طواف‎, Ṭawāf; literally circling) is one of the Islamic rituals of pilgrimage. During the Hajj and Umrah, Muslims are to circumambulate the Kaaba (most sacred site in Islam) seven times, in a counterclockwise direction.[1] The circling is believed to demonstrate the unity of the believers in the worship of the One God, as they move in harmony together around the Kaaba, while supplicating to God.

So no warner...huh?

The Quran says that Arabs were staying in the ka'aba for worship and performing Tawaf, during the time of Abraham and Ishmael. How interesting is that? It doesn't say pagans, it says worshiping and performing Tawaf and prostrating in prayer.

Were Abraham and Ishmael time travelers?

originally posted by: WarminIndy


It sill does not negate the fact that Islam teaches that Ishmael was a prophet and a warner, and built the ka'aba with Abraham....soooooo a warner was sent to the forefathers.

You can continue to keep shrouding your lies under the wrapper of moot points, it does not hide the fact that you are still LYING!!!!

Prophet Abraham and his son Prophet Ishmael, peace be upon them, were not the forefathers of the Arabs or Prophet Muhammad.

Understand this. As I have PROVED it using logic, and the statements of the quran.

Your entire argument is based on the crazy notion that they are the forefathers of the arabs. They were not.

Yes they were Muslim, yes they were messengers, no they were not the forefathers of the arabs.

There is no mistake, there is no contradiction. It is only you that is caught up in a lie. When you have untangled yourself from the lie, we can speak. Otherwise all the proof proving that Prophets Abraham and Ishmael are not the forefathers now exists in this thread for all to read.

I have stuck to the confines of the scripture as presented by the Quran where you put forward the verses in Surat Yasin 36:6 and I don't see the need to continue the discussion any further since you will not admit you are wrong, and continue to lie.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


It sill does not negate the fact that Islam teaches that Ishmael was a prophet and a warner, and built the ka'aba with Abraham....soooooo a warner was sent to the forefathers.

You can continue to keep shrouding your lies under the wrapper of moot points, it does not hide the fact that you are still LYING!!!!

Prophet Abraham and his son Prophet Ishmael, peace be upon them, were not the forefathers of the Arabs or Prophet Muhammad.

Understand this. As I have PROVED it using logic, and the statements of the quran. Therefore they were not the warners, and the Quran attests that the arabs had no warners!!!!!!

Your entire argument is based on the crazy notion that they are the forefathers of the arabs. They were not.

Yes they were Muslim, yes they were messengers, no they were not the forefathers of the arabs.

There is no mistake, there is no contradiction. It is only you that is caught up in a lie. When you have untangled yourself from the lie, we can speak. Otherwise all the proof proving that Prophets Abraham and Ishmael are not the forefathers now exists in this thread for all to read.

I have stuck to the confines of the scripture as presented by the Quran where you put forward the verses in Surat Yasin 36:6 and I don't see the need to continue the discussion any further since you will not admit you are wrong, and continue to lie.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: WarminIndy


It sill does not negate the fact that Islam teaches that Ishmael was a prophet and a warner, and built the ka'aba with Abraham....soooooo a warner was sent to the forefathers.

You can continue to keep shrouding your lies under the wrapper of moot points, it does not hide the fact that you are still LYING!!!!

Prophet Abraham and his son Prophet Ishmael, peace be upon them, were not the forefathers of the Arabs or Prophet Muhammad.

Understand this. As I have PROVED it using logic, and the statements of the quran. Therefore they were not the warners, and the Quran attests that the arabs had no warners!!!!!!

Your entire argument is based on the crazy notion that they are the forefathers of the arabs. They were not.

Yes they were Muslim, yes they were messengers, no they were not the forefathers of the arabs.

There is no mistake, there is no contradiction. It is only you that is caught up in a lie. When you have untangled yourself from the lie, we can speak. Otherwise all the proof proving that Prophets Abraham and Ishmael are not the forefathers now exists in this thread for all to read.

I have stuck to the confines of the scripture as presented by the Quran where you put forward the verses in Surat Yasin 36:6 and I don't see the need to continue the discussion any further since you will not admit you are wrong, and continue to lie.

I have stuck with the confines of the Quran.

Many of your imams have taught that Ishmael is the father of Muslims, haven't they? And some of them have even taught that Ishmael was the father of Arabs.

I never said he was, I said that Islam teaches that. You can argue that with all the Muslims you want, the point is, the verse says no warners came to the forefathers. I then posted another verse from the Quran that shows the contradictions.

Either Abraham and Ishmael were warners or they were not. And since the Quran says they were and then says there were no warners, it contradicts itself.

I am not lying, you just have a hard time acknowledging the Quran's contraditctions. I don't blame you though, I do understand the pressure you guys are under. Which verse is then wrong?

If Islam teaches that Abraham and Ishmael were there as warners during the time of the forefathers, then logically, the Quran is wrong in two places.

originally posted by: WarminIndy



I have stuck with the confines of the Quran.

Many of your imams have taught that Ishmael is the father of Muslims, haven't they? And some of them have even taught that Ishmael was the father of Arabs.

I never said he was, I said that Islam teaches that. You can argue that with all the Muslims you want, the point is, the verse says no warners came to the forefathers. I then posted another verse from the Quran that shows the contradictions.

Either Abraham and Ishmael were warners or they were not. And since the Quran says they were and then says there were no warners, it contradicts itself.

I am not lying, you just have a hard time acknowledging the Quran's contraditctions. I don't blame you though, I do understand the pressure you guys are under. Which verse is then wrong?

If Islam teaches that Abraham and Ishmael were there as warners during the time of the forefathers, then logically, the Quran is wrong in two places.

Listen for the last time, there is no contradiction. I do not actually care what Imam or what 'muslim' you have spoken to in the past or present that has told you that Prophet Ishmael is the forefather of the arabs.

Every Muslim mus follow what is written in the Quran, there is no argument here. And since you have not presented anything whatsoever from the QURAN that indicates any type of lineage between Ishmael and the Prophet Muhammaed or the Arabs, you are wrong and the Imams you have spoken to are misinformed according the Quran.

I am having a hard time watching you lie continuously, actually. Islam teaches what the Quran teaches. So stick to the Quran from where you brought forward the original verse in question, and ignore what another Imam has told you.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You are now contradicting yourself, if we have established there is no supporting evidence from the Quran that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael were the forefathers of the Arabs and Prophet Muhammad, how then can they be the warners of the Arabs???????? They cannot, and thus the Arabs never had any messengers of Allah warn them whatsover, UNTIL the Prophet Muhammad reached Prophet-hood, and warned them.

They were not the warners of the Arabs, according to what is revealed in the Quran, which is the holy book that all Imams and all Muslims must adhere to.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: WarminIndy

You are now contradicting yourself, if we have established there is no supporting evidence from the Quran that the Prophet Abraham and the Prophet Ishmael were the forefathers of the Arabs and Prophet Muhammad, how then can they be the warners of the Arabs???????? They cannot, and thus the Arabs never had any messengers of Allah warn them whatsover, UNTIL the Prophet Muhammad reached Prophet-hood, and warned them.

They were not the warners of the Arabs, according to what is revealed in the Quran, which is the holy book that all Imams and all Muslims must adhere to.

Let's try this again...from the Quran. I have never once gone outside of the Quran or Islamic sources. But we shall again...

(2:125) of chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow):

Sahih International: And [mention] when We made the House a place of return for the people and [a place of] security. And take, [O believers], from the standing place of Abraham a place of prayer. And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], "Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer]."

Slowly, let's look at this...

WHO charged Abraham and Ishmael?
Charged them to do WHAT?
WHEN were they charged?
WHERE were they charged?
HOW were they charged?
WHY were they charged?

Abraham and Ishmael were in the time of the forefathers, right? Abraham and Ishmael were warners, right? Therefore, logically they were warners of the Arabs in Saudi Arabia (according to the Quran but not the Bible).

OK, WE (maybe you say royal we, but we is plural) is taken to be Allah, so Allah charged them.
They were charged to rebuild the ka'aba. They were charged during the time of the forefathers. They were charged in Mecca. They were charged by royal decree (I suppose, or by Jibreel), they were charged to purify the ka'aba so the people staying there (in Mecca at the ka'aba) could worship and prosrate (as Muslims) and perform Tawaf (in Mecca, as Muslims, at the ka'aba).

Abraham and Ishmael were then warners. So the Quran is wrong. And if Abraham and Ishmael were there as warners, to purify the ka'aba for those staying there, worshiping and prostrating, then Abraham and Ishmael must have been time travelers because it is evident from the Quran that it explicitely states that Abraham and Ishmael were there at the same time as the forefathers, to warn them with a message.

1: Allah
2: Purify the ka'aba
3:At the time of the forefathers
4:In Mecca, at the ka'aba
5: By command.
6:So the worshipers staying in the ka'aba could prostrate and perform Tawaf.

That's Quran. Contradiction.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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?

Surely if lateness makes a document or claim within a document suspect we should also throw out the late documents which point to Joseph as being advanced in age? Also on the subject of red herrings, the only places I've read the age of Mary and Joseph being mentioned is in the History of Joseph the Carpenter, and perhaps the infancy Gospel of James, which was written in the late 6th or early 7th century, whereas the second was written over 200 years after Jesus' death and the discovery of his empty tomb. I find it odd that many of the same posters who reject the traditions of Muhammad based on their late date are also happy to embrace shady works of Apocrypha which are as untrustworthy as documents come. A convenient break in their method perhaps. Actually quoting from the history of Joseph the carpenter to discover anything about the actual historic Joseph is absurd. Perhaps someone has a more reliable set of documents putting forward this idea of Joseph and Mary's age, if not I'd say we should drop this argument as either born of ignorance or dishonesty.

Also the red herrings about Joseph and Mary don't really change the point of the topic. I wonder if Muslims realize how ridiculous it sounds to the uninitiated when they say things like 'Allah told Muhammad to take this little girl for his wife.' It's laughable unless you're already committed to Islam, but for everyone outside of that group these defenses sound utterly desperate.

In addition, unless we're cherry picking our way through the document, the same unreliable document which posters have lifted the age of Joseph from also confirms Mary's status as virgin upon the death of her husband. So regardless of when they were married Mary (at least according to this document) lived as a virgin for seemingly her entire life. Nevertheless as it's been written before, none of these documents which posters are using to undermine Joseph and Mary are reliable. They're late and full of apologetic argument and religious motifs, with Joseph's late age being one of those many apologetic arguments. Joseph being advanced in age was often used to argue that he couldn't possibly have been the father of Jesus the Christ.

It's sad that these documents are so often used by Muslims in an attempt to take heat off of Muhammad, since Muslims claim they support all the prophets and all the righteous men and women of history, but in reality they're happy to throw Mary and Joseph under the bus so to build an awful excuse for the unsavory behavior of Muhammad.

Lastly, if Muhammad's more questionable behavior was confined to his own lifetime I doubt anyone would honestly care. Such is the way with Islam, if Muslim believers weren't murdering apostates, kidnapping schoolgirls and flying planes into buildings nobody would waste their time discussing how blatantly false Muslim beliefs are. Sadly Muhammad is the central face of Islam and how he behaved is supposedly to be praised and emulated, many Muslim men do this by marrying and having sexual relations (raping) helpless little girls. Regardless of how things worked in Muhammad's day, it isn't his day anymore, he's a myth ridden figure who killed his way into the history books and is better left forgotten. Children needn't suffer today if Muhammad couldn't keep his hands to himself in the past. In short, if you're looking for God, peace on earth or just a coherent world-view look far away from Islam.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Let's try this again...from the Quran. I have never once gone outside of the Quran or Islamic sources. But we shall again...

You need to stop trying to lie, just accept the truth! YOU DID go outside the Quran very blatantly - you said an Imam told you that the Arabs are descendant from Prophet Abraham via Prophet Ishmael. THEN you went on to preach yourself that this is what Islam is teaching!! But the Quran does not back up what your Imam is telling you whatsoever! In fact the Quran is saying the opposite, either your Imam is making statements not backed by the Quran and hence his information is not accurate according to Islam, or you are making this up yourself. Which is it?

You said it yourself, you got the information from an Imam and they the Imam made the statement not you - '''Many of your imams have taught that Ishmael is the father of Muslims, haven't they? And some of them have even taught that Ishmael was the father of Arabs.''

''I never said he was, I said that Islam teaches that.'' Where are the teachings of Islam prescribed? By an Imam or in the Quran? Let's see you try and lie yourself out of that question.

Regardless of what the Imam said to you, it is not mentioned in the Quran - this is how you get extremist Muslims, that make up their own mambo jambo and say 'this is Islam', no it is not in the Quran.

Slowly, let's look at this...

If you want to lie more slowly, then do as you wish, I obviously cannot stop you from lying, and ATS will star you for lies. Nice one.

Abraham and Ishmael were in the time of the forefathers, right? Abraham and Ishmael were warners, right? Therefore, logically they were warners of the Arabs in Saudi Arabia (according to the Quran but not the Bible).

What do you mean by this? At the time of the forefathers??? Forefathers are the ancestors of a particular nation or people by way of lineage or bloodline. You first claimed they were the forefathers and now you are backtracking and saying they were at the 'time' of the forefathers. We have already established they were warners, and messengers, just not the messengers of the Arab nation. In the Quran, Allah states clearly messengers where sent to every nation, and it does not say that the Arabs were warned by Ishmael or that Ishmael is the forefather, it says the opposite, that the Arabs received no teachings or warning before the Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

More importantly there is no mention whatsoever in the Quran the the two Prophets you speak off had any form of lineage or blood connecting them to the Arabs, none at all. You and your Imam can huff and puff all day with speculation but it is not backed up the Quran - so why assert that Prophet Abraham and Ishmael are the forefathers? Islam does not teach that.

Abraham and Ishmael were then warners. So the Quran is wrong.

The Quran that it explicitely states that Abraham and Ishmael were there at the same time as the forefathers, to warn them with a message.

That's Quran. Contradiction.

I agree in that they were warners, but what verse in the Quran makes any mention to the forefathers of the Arabs? or the Prophet Mumammad?? Show me the verse.

The Quran is very clear on any lineages that do exist between peoples, and there is no mention of the forefather of Prophet Muhammad (except that he is a descendant of Adam like all humans), there is not one verse that alludes that Ishmael or Abraham were the bloodlines of the Arab people. It is simply not backed by the Quran, the Quran talks about lineages very clearly and states names.

Abraham and Ishmael were 'warners' as you say, but not for the Arab people, and you will not find a single verse in the Quran that outlines any names or lineages or bloodlines between the Arabs and those two warners.

Muhammad was the first warner to the Arab nation, as you brought forward the verse Surat Ya'sin 36:6, Quran is very clear on this.

The Quran is not a contradiction, you are a contradiction. You say Islam teaches 'that' and 'this;' and use Imams as your source of information, going outside what the Quran states. You cannot prove they were the forefathers by way of lineage or bloodline, I have proved that they are not the forefathers with clear verses from the Quran.

You continue to fabricate lies, creating a smokescreen of moot points, to disguise your lies!! My challenge to you is to bring forth any verse from the Quran that ties Prophet Muhammad or the Arabs as descendants of Prophet Abraham via Prophet Ishmael.

The Quran is very clear on any lineages mentioned. And so you have no proof to back you or your Imams claims of lineage.

originally posted by: OldSchoolContemporary
Surely if lateness makes a document or claim within a document suspect we should also throw out the late documents which point to Joseph as being advanced in age? Also on the subject of red herrings, the only places I've read the age of Mary and Joseph being mentioned is in the History of Joseph the Carpenter, and perhaps the infancy Gospel of James, which was written in the late 6th or early 7th century, whereas the second was written over 200 years after Jesus' death and the discovery of his empty tomb. I find it odd that many of the same posters who reject the traditions of Muhammad based on their late date are also happy to embrace shady works of Apocrypha which are as untrustworthy as documents come. A convenient break in their method perhaps. Actually quoting from the history of Joseph the carpenter to discover anything about the actual historic Joseph is absurd. Perhaps someone has a more reliable set of documents putting forward this idea of Joseph and Mary's age, if not I'd say we should drop this argument as either born of ignorance or dishonesty.

You do realize that there is ZERO contemporaneous evidence for ANY of the claims in the bible about Jesus' birth right? We are standing on shaky ground whenever ANY topic about ANY religious text comes up, because ALL of the stories were written down decades if not centuries after they happened. Though, at least the Jesus birth account is IN the bible; the account of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old isn't in the Quran. There is no historical basis for it.

Also the red herrings about Joseph and Mary don't really change the point of the topic. I wonder if Muslims realize how ridiculous it sounds to the uninitiated when they say things like 'Allah told Muhammad to take this little girl for his wife.' It's laughable unless you're already committed to Islam, but for everyone outside of that group these defenses sound utterly desperate.

I'm not defending Muhammad, I just don't believe that Aisha was as young as 6 when he married her. It is more believable that she was around 12 or 13 when he did. You know, the same age as Mary?

In addition, unless we're cherry picking our way through the document, the same unreliable document which posters have lifted the age of Joseph from also confirms Mary's status as virgin upon the death of her husband. So regardless of when they were married Mary (at least according to this document) lived as a virgin for seemingly her entire life. Nevertheless as it's been written before, none of these documents which posters are using to undermine Joseph and Mary are reliable. They're late and full of apologetic argument and religious motifs, with Joseph's late age being one of those many apologetic arguments. Joseph being advanced in age was often used to argue that he couldn't possibly have been the father of Jesus the Christ.

It's sad that these documents are so often used by Muslims in an attempt to take heat off of Muhammad, since Muslims claim they support all the prophets and all the righteous men and women of history, but in reality they're happy to throw Mary and Joseph under the bus so to build an awful excuse for the unsavory behavior of Muhammad.

I'm not Muslim...

Lastly, if Muhammad's more questionable behavior was confined to his own lifetime I doubt anyone would honestly care. Such is the way with Islam, if Muslim believers weren't murdering apostates, kidnapping schoolgirls and flying planes into buildings nobody would waste their time discussing how blatantly false Muslim beliefs are. Sadly Muhammad is the central face of Islam and how he behaved is supposedly to be praised and emulated, many Muslim men do this by marrying and having sexual relations (raping) helpless little girls. Regardless of how things worked in Muhammad's day, it isn't his day anymore, he's a myth ridden figure who killed his way into the history books and is better left forgotten. Children needn't suffer today if Muhammad couldn't keep his hands to himself in the past. In short, if you're looking for God, peace on earth or just a coherent world-view look far away from Islam.

Muhammad was a warmongering twat who spread his "Religion of Peace" the exact opposite way that peace describes. I don't think he is some awesome dude beyond reproach and questioning. I just don't believe that he married a 6 year old. He had plenty of other wives that weren't children when he married her. Why make the exception there? Plus the whole not being in the Quran thing really seals the deal for me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We are standing on shaky ground whenever ANY topic about ANY religious text comes up, because ALL of the stories were written down decades if not centuries after they happened.

But it's safe to say some portions of ground are more shaky than others, fair? You personally dismiss the traditions of Muhammad for being written over 200 years after Muhammad's life, yet you're comfortable with using widely discredited documents like The history of Joseph the carpenter, a piece of fiction which was written over 700 years after the life and times of Joseph. Isn't this odd upon reflection, why reject a document for being 200 years too late while accepting another document which was written over 700 years after the events it's supposed to record?

It is more believable that she was around 12 or 13 when he did. You know, the same age as Mary?

Where is this information coming from though?

I'm not Muslim...

Hopefully you didn't feel too set upon by much of my message, apart from the actual quotation of your words much of what was written was meant for general consumption.

Plus the whole not being in the Quran thing really seals the deal for me.

But why would this matter to you being a non-muslim? Having read the Qur'an cover to cover I'm sympathetic to Muslim believers who exit the Qur'an in an attempt to find answers to this poorly written, painfully ambiguous text.

originally posted by: OldSchoolContemporary
But it's safe to say some portions of ground are more shaky than others, fair? You personally dismiss the traditions of Muhammad for being written over 200 years after Muhammad's life, yet you're comfortable with using widely discredited documents like The history of Joseph the carpenter, a piece of fiction which was written over 700 hundred years after the life and times of Joseph. Isn't this odd upon reflection, why reject a document for being 200 years too late while accepting another document which was written over 700 years after the events it's supposed to record?

To be honest (as I've already said earlier in the thread), I've always believed that Joseph was in his 30's or 40's when he married Mary. A 30 year old marrying a 13 year old in Jesus' time was a pretty common occurrence, so I think that is more likely. That source I posted earlier was the first time I saw someone claim Joe was 90 when he married her.

Where is this information coming from though?

Just an educated guess. To be honest, anything concerning Jesus is an educated guess since we aren't even sure he existed.

Hopefully you didn't feel too set upon by much of my message, apart from the actual quotation of your words much of what was written was meant for general consumption.

I wasn't. It just seemed like you were assuming I was Muslim.

But why would this matter to you being a non-muslim? Having read the Qur'an cover to cover I'm sympathetic to Muslim believers who exit the Qur'an in an attempt to find answers to this poorly written, painfully ambiguous text.

Because that puts ZERO contemporaneous claims around the time that Muhammad lived of him marrying a 6 year old. If the only source of this claim came 200 years after he lived and doesn't even show up in the religious text then it isn't worth considering as valid.

For instance, I've been known to argue against the Biblical Jesus since there is no contemporanous evidence around the time he lived of the Biblical Jesus existing. HOWEVER, I can't deny that he was written about in the Bible. So there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in that account (for instance, Jesus could have just been a profound religious cult leader that bucked the Jewish status quo of the time and got himself killed for it). So I can't deny that there is something there at the very least. But in the case of the claim made about Aisha, the earliest source of this claim came 200 years after he died, and no one even deemed to write about it in the Quran. So why repeat it as factual?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Are you now saying there is no evidence? You mean the imams made it up? Then the Islamic scholars lied, didn't they? And if they lied about that, imagine what else they lied about, I mean about Mohammed being the last prophet and all?

But my point still is, the Quran said there were no warners, but yet said Abraham and Ishmael were to purify the ka'aba...in the time of the forefathers.

Muslim claim of Mohammed and Ishmael

Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael. As proof of their position, Muslims refer to genealogies written around 770-775 A.D. by Ibn Ishak

Was I wrong? Did I really make a false claim? I said Islam teaches, I said nothing about the Quran saying it. Please read my post carefully. IF there were Imams and scholars saying it as early as 770 AD, then Islam taught it and some still teach it to this day.

I did not lie. And according to this Muslim scholar...no one was in Mecca at the time of Abraham anyway, so there was no ka'aba.

These families only came to occupy Mecca in the 5th century A.D. The city of Mecca was built by the tribe of Khuzaa'h in the 4th century A.D.

So, no Mecca, no ka'aba. No worship by Abraham and Ishmael in Mecca...the Quran contradicts itself another third time.

I think you agree with Sam Shamoun because he showed the contradiction. Good for you, now you saw the contradiction with Islamic teaching, and since it was Muslims who believed it then it was Muslims who taught it. Christians and Jews have been saying for a long time that was not correct, but as I said...Islam teaches it. I said nothing about the Quran teaching it.

So please, read what I wrote.

Quran 2 : 127-129And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.
128. "Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
129. "Our Lord! send amongst them an Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise).

Again, my point is that your Quran says that there were no warners but then says Abraham and Ishmael were warners. So how can that be?

Contradiction.

Did Ishmael live among the Arabs? Yes or no?

Islamic knowledge

Hagar and Ishmael remained as such for a period of time, until people from the tribe of Jurhum passed by. They came from the direction of Kada', a place south of Makkah. Those people saw a wandering bird, circling in the sky, not landing but wanting to come down. They said, “This is a sign of water in that location”. This is what birds do when they fly over water. The tribesmen found this interesting; for their knowledge of that valley was that it was without water. They sent one or two men to check it out, and those men saw the water.

The problem with this whole scenario is that it is an Islamic website, teaching that Ishmael and Hagar were in Mecca before the city was built, then a tribe came through. So then, Ishmael was a warner, according to this website and according to Islam. Is this Islamic website wrong?

While you are working so hard to refute me, you neglect what I said. I said "Islam teaches". I have presented three sources that indicate Islam does teach it. Whether you agree with it or not, that's up to you.

No Mecca, no ka'aba. If Abraham and Ishmael were there, then they were warners to the forefathers. And since the Quran says they had no warners, then you better get Abraham and Ishmael out of Mecca in the Quran story.

From the Bible

Also some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents, and tribute silver; and the Arabians brought him flocks, seven thousand and seven hundred rams, and seven thousand and seven hundred he goats.

Who was Jehoshaphat? He was the fourth king of Israel

Jehoshaphat ascended the throne at the age of thirty-five and reigned for twenty-five years. He spent the first years of his reign fortifying his kingdom against the Kingdom of Israel. His zeal in suppressing the idolatrous worship of the "high places" is commended in 2 Chronicles 17:6

So here is a king that was against idolatry, during the time of the forefathers, whom the ARABS gave sheep and goats to. Interesting. Another warner to the Arabs.

And they knew Solomon.

2 Chronicles 9:14 Beside that which chapmen and merchants brought. And all the kings of Arabia and governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon.

Prophet Solomon was then a warner, and he was the grandfather of Jehoshaphat.

Going back even further...

The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah—the which We have sent by inspiration to thee—and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein:... —Quran, sura 42 (Ash-Shura), ayah 13

Noah was then a warner. So how can it be said that there were no warners, but yet it says there were warners, long before the forefathers?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there were warners or there were not. And if the Quran says that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Ishmael were warners, then it contradicts itself. I can't say it any more plainly.

Now, as there were Arabians in Israel, giving tribute to Solomon, and Arabians trading in Persia, then the forefathers were warned. Zoroastrianism was in Persia, and Islam claims Zoroastrianism to be an Islamic religion...then the Arabians were warned by Zarathustra.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Zarathustra..all living in the time of the forefathers. The forefathers were warned.