Islam & Aisha's age

I'm not sure which board to post this on, as there is no religion board, but i recently saw this comment by a Muslim on goodreads. This woman claims that Aisha was not as young as people claim.

is the comment in the pic accurate?

Other urls found in this thread:

goodreads.com/review/show/731124208
wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation
wikiislam.net
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms
kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/
wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation#Conclusion
wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia
wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur'an
wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah_the_Best_Deceiver
wikiislam.net/wiki/Cosmology_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Flat_Earth_and_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Science_and_the_Seven_Earths
wikiislam.net/wiki/Quranic_Claim_of_Everything_Created_in_Pairs
wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam
wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins
desustorage.org/his/thread/1082621/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

here is a link to the review where the comment was posted:
goodreads.com/review/show/731124208

wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation

Muhammad was a gluttonous wealthy slave owner, an adulterer, a child-molesting pedophile, a murderer, a liar, he encouraged theft, rape, torture and the list goes on. He was the pawn of Satan and is now in Hell.

>Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:15-20

The short answer is that we don't really know what her age really was. The Hadith are not historical accounts and anecdotes, they're the accumulated myths of early Islam that were indexed by storyteller and story, and it's frankly hard to tell where fact ends and elaboration/conjecture begins. What the lady in that post brings up is less the 'true account' so much as the existing evidence that what we do know of this and other biographical and chronological details about Muhammad and his contemporaries is full of discrepancies - plot holes if you will.

So it's not inaccurate, but not any more accurate than other accounts stating she was 6, 8, 9, or whatever. As historical fact they're all equally valid considering the mess of politics and obtuse literary devices that is the Hadith. But it's a more plausible explanation on the other hand.

The average european noble/royalty for a while then. You think you two would have more in common. Clovis (defender of the faith) and him probably would've gotten along after a while.

If you really want to understand the Sunni / Shia schism and Aisha's part in it, read "After the Prophet" by Hazelton. It is available in pdf online and is written for a Western audience. It is a well researched well written book...

>wikiislam.net
General rule of thumb for Veeky Forumstorians interested in History, not "Humanities":

Read the useful and autistically extensive collection of translated primary source excerpts for quick reference when you can't find your academic primers and encyclopedia of Islam (you have one, yes?). Ignore everything outside of quote boxes as [Original Research].

In english please doc.

General Wikipedia caution basically. Find an article, trawl for direct quotes, find references to primary sources and academic works, and ignore everything else. And be sure to at least attempt to read scholarly experts before coming up with your own >opinions on what a quote means both theologically and historically.

I tend to avoid these sorts of pop-history/theology books. What makes it worth reading over an orientalist?

What are you saying about that wiki though? Good? Bad?

Like I said in the other thread, I really doubt an evil man that opposes Christ would tolerate Christians and Jews the way Muhammad did.

Mostly bad, like most wikis that aren't based on STEM autism or vidya, devolving every other page into petty blog wars with equally asinine and opinionated apologetics.

Are you saying ''evil man'' sarcastically? Examine the facts pal.

Jesus Christ:
>"Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Luke 23:34

(He said this while dying on the cross at Calvary after being betrayed and sentenced to die for no legitimate reason.)

Muhammad:
>"May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets."
Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427

(He had been poisoned years earlier by a Jewish woman whose husband was killed by the Muslims and the poison had slowly worked its effect. He said this while dying in the arms of his wife Aisha.)

It maintains neutrality. It doesn't take a religious position. The book is concerned with the people surrounding him immediately prior to his death and the political (not religious) fallout of his death. A quick read. Deals in the history without taking sides. Took me 3 days part time reading and the Sunni / Shia schism finally makes sense.

the wiki in question however generally relies on Islamic scripture and early Muslim sources. at least from the articles i've read.

No, it's wrong. And I mean flat out lying, since some hadiths referencing Aisha come from her own mouth at the time, since when Mohammad died they desperately spoke to people who knew him trying to gather up hadith in order to follow the sunnah (his actions because he's seen as moral and someone to be emulated). She was married young, but the marriage was consumnated at 9 or so. So, basically, probably as soon as puberty started.

In today's world this is pretty fucked up, but the real defense should be that at 13 as a boy you'd be a grown ass man told to get the fuck out and start your own life. Once puberty hit, you were generally sent off to be an adult for most of human history. Especially since you had to pump out kids as early as possible since you'd die young for a variety of reasons like famine, plague, war, etc., and most of your kids would die since this was before the age of medicine that did anything.

So, in their time, it wasn't seen as weird. Nor would it be seen as weird even in Europe hence why it was never brought up by them while tons of other stuff was. It's really only a case of apples and oranges today "why did your prophet do an act that's immoral by today's standards but necessary by their standards?"

He did lots of other fucked up shit and says some retarded shit if you read the Quran and hadith, marrying a young girl and consumating it at puberty at that time isn't one of them. Everyone's ancestors did it. If they didn't, we'd all be dead by now.

Inappropriate BAIT. This is a History thread where a legitimate question was asked. This is NOT Sunday School and you obviously have NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject being discussed.

Muhammad was actually visited by a false angel of light, it was a demon, a fallen angel of deception. Satan and his workers are great mimickers and Muhammad, deceived, established a demonic cult of Allah (false-God) called Islam (meaning voluntary submission to this false-God, i.e. Satan) which he spread by the sword like wildfire convinced that it was the last revelation of God Almighty.

Islam is none other than Satan's magnum opus, which now has 1.6 billion adherents (23% of the world population) and which will probably be followed by half of the world population by 2050.

>For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15

W-wew

Abandon thread

Sage, ignore, etc

Muhammad was Satan's pawn, merely a man, he was easily deceived.
Jesus is the Christ prophesied in Scripture, born of God, undeceivable.

Islam's deceptions are endless:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms

It's good specifically for laying out a lot of scripture that's hard to pin down in one place online in an easily searchable wiki format. And that's about it. Any idiot can then make uneducated opinions based on scripture - Muslim apologists do it all the time, as do anti-Muslim bigots in their own dark corner of the net. Take the link in the thread for example. The references and similar links at the bottom of the page are almost all links to opinion pieces, blogs, and apologeia for the purpose of attacking. In no way would any of this be of any use to a historian wanting to study Islamic and Muslim history. Hell, the ONE academic in the references is pop-history memelord John Esposito, and he's only even referenced to build up the reputation of an apologetic the writers of the article are attacking.

It's literally 80% an archive for shitposting and meme Islamic studies, and 20% useful, direct quotes (which are then compartmentalized and labeled under pages and headers trying to push a certain way of reading them). You would probably get the same quality of discourse searching through /pol/ and r/atheism archives.

...

And you say it's demonic because of the picture? Let's see what angels looked like in the canon Bible. Tell me this doesn't sound like something downright demonic and so surreal that even Salvador Dali and H.R. Giger wouldn't even come up with this shit.

kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/

This IS NOT Sunday School. The question stands. Aisha's age at marriage and consummation of that marriage. The answers vary with "reliable" sources differing greatly. There is strong evidence that she was 19 at consummation. The prophet's and Islam's supposed relationship to Satan has NOTHING TO DO with the Islamic source material and other SCHOLARLY work which looks at the question being asked.

Please stop. Just respond to questions earnestly, and ignore and don't point out obvious bait and expect anything more than a cookie cutter sermon. This is how every potentially Veeky Forums thread turns into another /rel/ shitfest.

Just stop, for the love of God or whoever.

>There is strong evidence that she was 19 at consummation.
what evidence? not the christian guy you're replying to btw.

It's one of those things that gets tied up in the Sunni/Shi'a dispute because of Aisha's role as a supporter of the former party later in life. You'll get no clearer an answer on this question than on that of whether Muhammad named Ali his successor.

>you say it's demonic because of the picture?
Bait? See >There is strong evidence that she was 19 at consummation
No there isn't.

Apologists have presented a series of arguments as to why the generally accepted understanding of Aisha’s age (i.e. nine-years-old) when she married and had sex with Muhammad, based on commonly known narratives, is erroneous and contradictory. However, on closer inspection, we find they have produced arguments that can be broadly categorized into these categories:

A. Unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators.
B. The use of non-sahih information to refute otherwise sahih hadiths.
C. The use of secondary, indirect sources in preference of direct testimonies.
D. The use of ‘imprecise’ dating in preference to specific dates and statements of age.
E. The use of misquoted references and erroneous information.
F. The use of incorrect logic.
G. Personal opinion.

When one examines their claims, one sees that their arguments contradict and debunk each other. Argument No. 5 says she was 14 to 21 years old. However, argument No. 6 says she was 15+, argument No. 7 says she was 17 or 18, argument No. 8 says Aisha was 14+, argument No. 9 says she was 12+, and argument No. 12 says she was 12. In other words, each and every one of the evidences contradicts and debunks all the others. Which of these so-called arguments is correct? They cannot all be correct. Clearly the apologists do not have a clue.

(1/2)

>a debate on hearsay from more than a thousand years ago

>Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

>There is strong evidence that she was 19 at consummation.

No, there's fucking not. She was way younger than that. Up until fairly recently in history you were married and had sex long, long before 19. This isn't the modern age you're talking about, it's at the cusp of the middle ages. Even most sources say she was younger. The only time this "she was 19" shit comes from is because modern people think it's fucked up for little kids having sex right after puberty despite this being the case for most of human history and lasting even into the 1700s and 1800s.

It's fucked up now because we know better. Back then they didn't, and even if they did know better, they couldn't afford to wait that long given their shorter lifespans, and tons of variables like disease, kids dying very easily with the lack of modern medicine, warfare, etc. When living to your 30s and 40s made you fucking ancient, you didn't have time to wait that long before growing up and doing shit. It's why humans reach puberty so young: because for most of our history, that's when you'd be an adult and get down to fucking and trying to live your adult life.

And even with that young age of puberty, we still hit a genetic bottleneck and couldn't get out population up really quickly until we entered the 20th century and had advancements across a variety of fields that afforded us such a luxury.

Their argument appears to be that because they themselves, using spurious information, derive multiple conflicting ages for the one specific event in Aisha’s life, then we must throw out what we know about her age at this event. In effect, they are saying that just because they are using rubbish data, we have to throw out the sahih hadiths. However, this is not the logical outcome. A reasonable person would note that whilst their arguments debunk each other, all of the sahih hadith in regards to Aisha's age of consummation are in perfect harmony. Thus, rather than discarding the good with the bad, we will merely throw out the bad; in this case, the weak apologetic attempt to obfuscate our understanding that Aisha was aged nine when she married and had sex with Muhammad.

(2/2)

From:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation#Conclusion

See also:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia
wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur'an

>bait
Nice buzzword my atheist friend.

But user, most of what historians do is debate ancient hearsay.

muslims apologists BTFO

>every single piece of evidence on a subject matter is contradictory
>so mine is instead correct!

Start at Muslim.org and work from there.

I will concede that the evidence can be considered equally "reliable" for age 9. That is the point. With any contentious doctrinal debate, both sides have there own sources and present their own provenance. I believe she was a teenager based on my limited study as a gentile and I resent the presentation of the prophet as a pedophile.

>Up until fairly recently in history you were married and had sex long, long before 19.
Average age of marriage in Medieval Muslim (and European societies) varied between 14-18, with outliers near the 12-13 and 19-20 ranges. It could vary quite a bit for a lot of reasons, really.

To be fair, historians do this with a more sober and methodical approach than most memelords out there.

>I'm a butthurt muslim who still thinks Allah isn't Satan
inb4 ''b-but Allah just means God in arabic :'(''

>Muslim.org
Do they say that he was a gluttonous wealthy slave owner, an adulterer, a child-molesting pedophile, a murderer, a liar, that he encouraged theft, rape, torture, etc. ?

>Do they say that he was a gluttonous wealthy slave owner, an adulterer, a child-molesting pedophile, a murderer, a liar, that he encouraged theft, rape, torture, etc. ?


About as much as Christian sites call their holy men who did the same things all of those things. :^)

>holy men
Jesus Christ and His disciples?

#rekt

You're forgetting the Old Testament, pal. Or are you saying that the Old Testament is wrong (in which case you lose all the justification for Christ being anything but some random guy) and/or think it wasn't god telling them to do all of those things?

>“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

Any questions?

see

Why do Christianforums members come to Veeky Forums anyway if they can't handle discussion about other religions

>Christianforums
I've literally never heard of it.
>they can't handle discussion about other religions
I gave OP what he asked for.

See and stop whining kiddo. ****** is two clicks away.

Yeah, my question about the Old Testament wasn't answered. You just went back to Jesus and ignored over half of your holy book again.

We're talking about Christianity here, not Judaism.

>“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40

>Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:2

Any questions?

ITT: muslim apologists getting BTFO

The Old Testament still applies. Moses is mentioned more in the NT than anyone else except Christ, and Jesus talks about the old laws most of the time and only changes up a few things with his own words. He even goes so far as to say not a jot or tittle of the old law shall change until the end of the world. You also rely on prophesy from the OT to justify Christ being anyone.

So, no, you very much need the OT and to read it. You can't skip over that and pretend it never happened, you dishonest faggot.

Meanwhile Veeky Forumstorians don't care, and can't be touched by copy-pasta and memes.

>you very much need the OT
I agree.

Any questions?

>I hate facts
It shows pal.

>copy-pasta
That's a nice buzzword btw, too bad it's not an argument :(

There's no upvote function on Veeky Forums for a reason

/thread

nice samefag, too bad the thread won't be over any time soon

Wow...
Any attempt to take the high road in this discussion is fruitless. The butt hurt is everywhere and the responses are playground insults of each other's Hily Men and Deities. You can objectively find fault in the prophets of most faiths.

Let me, as a humble Agnostic Methodist Jehovah's Witness Gentile kinda guy, but some bait out there for the Christians who are insulting the Prophet Mohammed.

Jesus was a Jew, why aren't you?

Now that doesn't add to the merits of the discussion of Aisha's age, but damn that felt good.

And for that matter, even Muslims keep the tradition of the Holy Day (or Sabbath) being Fri/Sat. Jesus certainly didn't give anybody permission to "forget the Sabbath day", but 2 billion Christians can't be bothered with the 10 Commandments.

That also felt good.

They were humans, The Prophet and Aisha, who lived long ago. Their's is a beautiful story that is the stuff of LEGEND. ALL religions have similar stories upon which their Legends and Deities are based. Quit getting so butt hurt because other humans have cultures and traditions.

RANT COMPLETE

The Veeky Forums thread ended there. The /rel/ thread can shitpost its way off the board and no one would care.

Hey Abd Al-Makr, there's no need to cry about it, y'know? You can just reject Satan and accept God, it's very simple.

You know what I asked already. You claim Mohammad is evil because he did all of those acts, and yet when Moses and the other holy men chosen by god himself (and some acts even being commanded by god himself) do those same exact acts throughout the entire OT, you don't say a thing and pretend "oh its only mohammad who's shit". All of you Abrahamic faiths are barbaric and monstrous. And don't even try to say Christ is so much different, because I guarantee I've read your book more than you have and the NT is full of stories where Christ does bad things.

For instance, when Christ says he only came to the lost sheep of Israel and compares a gentile woman a dog, and only when she accepts that she is inferior to the Jews, he blesses her.

So, even your Christ is shitty and your asses are still supposed to follow the old laws anyway according to Jesus. So, not only are you gentiles and unacceptable, you don't follow the Jewish laws and cherrypick shit to make it seem like "yeah, the OT is kinda harsh, but the NT has cuddly ol' Jesus who's all flowers and rainbows shooting out of his ass".

>hurr
please

Did you seriously delete your comment to call me a different Arabic name?

>You claim Mohammad is evil because he did all of those acts
Correct, see >muh Old Testament violence
See What don't you understand?

>Christ says he only came to the lost sheep of Israel and compares a gentile woman a dog
Nice meme. What next? muh fig tree? Pic related.

Christ is good because God is good. Stop pathetically trying to demonize Him.

>Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.
John 7:24

>Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11

>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

>So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Acts 10:34-35

>But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
1 Samuel 16:7

>different Arabic name
Look it up.

blown the fuck out

Oh Boy here you are again,and i thought i wouldn't see you after last thread when i roasted you to the bone,but i guess you're pretty vigilant with these copy pastas,anyway here we go again,

Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah -- The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage -- and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.

Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed.

Finally, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, dead for more than 700 years, recorded in the biographical section of Miskat al-Masabih that Asma, her elder sister of 10 years, died at the age of 100, 72 years after Aisha's wedding. This makes Aisha's age at the time of her marriage at least 14, and at the time of her marriage's consummation almost 20.

I have used historical sources and facts for my claim,lets see how you can counter this although just like in the last thread i'm going to bet you're going to run into circular logic and use unreliable sources from wikiislam,Oh and lastly about your point that says prophet was inspired by satan,trust me being visited by an angel wasn't the only thing that happened,he also got to journey to heaven in Isra and Miraj so unless satan can create a fake heaven aswell your claim is irrelevant.

1. So, the god of the OT is different and holy men were allowed to do evil and god was allowed to command evil? It may be Jewish, but Christ was a Jew and you guys love to reference the OT for the 10 commandments and shit against fags. You can't cherrypick. Either you're using the OT, or you're relying solely on the NT in which you can't justify Christ being anything but a random preacher because it doesn't have the OT "prophecy" about the coming messiah who Christ is meant to be.

2. Your picture doesn't mean anything. It's making excuses rather than actually talking about what Jesus said.

It's cute that you come up with this kindergarten level apologetics, but it doesn't take away that your god/his chosen people did horrible things. And funny how Christ never says he comes to all people, but all this happens later when the apostles tried to spread the gospel to non-Jews because they were getting curbstomped in Rome. Sounds like making concessions more than it does following what any of what god/Christ said.

See This is also relevant:
wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah_the_Best_Deceiver
wikiislam.net/wiki/Cosmology_of_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Flat_Earth_and_the_Quran
wikiislam.net/wiki/Science_and_the_Seven_Earths
wikiislam.net/wiki/Quranic_Claim_of_Everything_Created_in_Pairs
wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam
wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

Re-read since you apparently have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old girl named Aisha.

>i roasted you to the bone
Why are you lying? Oh wait, Muhammad teaches you to.

desustorage.org/his/thread/1082621/

Nice copying and pasting from that huffingtonpost article btw.

Too bad it's been refuted.

But, ya know what? Fine. If we're gonna cherrypick scripture that sounds nice, let's play that game.

Judges 19. All of it.

1 Samuel 15:3.

Exodus 22:18.

Leviticus 20:13.

Matthew 15:21–28

Matthew 5:18 where he says not a jot or tittle of the old law shall change. Meaning you need to be following all of the 613 rules set down by god, not the first 10 commandments. And, certainly, not the set of 10 commandments you cite that Moses broke, but the second one.

And, more importantly, if you're not a Jew none of this would realistically apply to you, meaning gentiles basically have free reign given this was only meant for Jews. But if you insist on following it, you follow every fucking bit of it according to Christ and the only changes would be what came out of his own mouth. And I could go on. Need I cite yet more and more of your "good book"? I'll be happy to shit all over your NT as well if you wanna pull the "NEW COVENANT! OLD STUFF DOESN'T APPLY!" crap.

See Christ is good because God is good.

Deal with it.

>God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

Cool, so you're just gonna ignore scripture that goes against your cherrypicked bits that sound nice out of context and refuse to read anything else about your god and the book you believe is the absolute truth.

I'm sorry for even saying you had kindergarten level apologetics. You're downright fucking retarded.

>this explanation comes from tumblr

Why can't we just have a thread on early Islam and historicity of sources? Do we really need this off-topic bullshit debate for the thousandth time?

>Moving the goalpost
Cute,Also those two posts you comes down to ''my sources are right yours is wrong'',It is a fact that battle of badr and uhud did not allow anyone under age of 15,If you want to win this arguement youll need to be more specific as to what you're trying to counter instead of throwing a ''my sources are better than yours because they serve my point.''.

IF Jesus is good because God (YHWH) is good THEN shouldn't Mohamed be good because God (Allah) is good.

Right?
I'm confused...

>Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.
yeh, islam wouldn't force anything on an infant, like say, mutilating their genitals and calling that their 'acceptance' of the religion, right? also,
>age limits on battles
top fucking kek, I'm sure they carded each warrior at the front lines.

>cherrypicked bits
Oh so you're also Biblically illiterate too, cute.

>''my sources are right yours is wrong''
Abd Al-Makr please. You literally copied and pasted stuff from a huffingtonpost article. You have no knowledge on this subject. You have been deceived, it wouldn't surprise me if you've never even read the Koran.

Reject Satan and accept God.

The clock is ticking.

>You do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.
James 4:14

See also Matthew 3:2

See... Isn't this a Sunni / Shia thing. We Christians should just stay out of this.

Because Christians are defensive over Islam and have to shove their shit in. They're scared of Islam growing while theirs is dying and feel the need to go "HEY THIS SHIT IS WRONG! BELIEVE OUR BULLSHIT! PLS BELIEVE US WE'RE DYING OUT!" and get asshurt when people show their book to be full of just as much stupid, barbaric, and terrible shit as the Quran. The OT is basically one big degenerate clusterfuck of slavery, rape, genocide, murder, all done by god's holy men and even approved of by god. And their NT isn't much better outside of a few cherrypicked examples that sound nice and loving, until you REALLY read it and see that Christ said you need to follow all of the old law, called gentiles dogs, and then later on came the "no u guise can totes join us because rome is stomping us out".

It's a messianic death cult and nothing more.

>Why can't we just have a thread on early Islam and historicity of sources?
op here. that's the sort of thing i was hoping to see discussed in this thread. shame it went the way it has.

You call me Biblically illiterate and yet completely ignored the verses I cited. Verses that according to Christ and god (since god didn't turn into a different god in the NT) were righteous acts and examples to be followed and laws you need to follow.

So, why did you ignore my verses and think your one sentence verses from various books overrides everything else?

>It's really only a case of apples and oranges today "why did your prophet do an act that's immoral by today's standards but necessary by their standards?"
This would normally be fine, but Muhammed is specifically meant to be the final prophet sent directly from God, who faithfully recited every single word from God by way of Gabriel, that applies from now until Armageddon. The best example of humanity to the extent that people are to emulate him in every way possible and value his opinions second only to gospel. If Muhammed is really all this, especially God's final prophet whose every word apply directly to us today, all this morally ambiguous stuff presents a problem. It's like the Biblical genocide of the Caananites. If something like that actually happened in antiquity, it wouldn't be that strange given all the massacres that also happened. But if you're looking to an eternal, unchanging God for moral authority and guidance, having that on their resume is kind of a problem for anyone who isn't genocidal. When you start invoking deities "historical context" stops being a valid excuse.

>god didn't turn into a different god in the NT
Jesus is God. See As I said, you are, in fact, Biblically illiterate.

>tfw when Jesus is the second most named prophet in the Quran

feels good familia

>[5:37] They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

>Dodging the arguement
>Ad hominem
Guess that's that then ill be seeing you around in the next thread buddy,i suggest you prepare some better material next time to avoid embarassing your christian friends once more,Salam habibi.

We'll never know. Biased and/or ill-informed historians lessened and lessened her age to drive the point home that she was a pure virgin, etc.

>Allah is one of three in a Trinity
Except that ''Allah'' is Satan.

>running away
Goodbye Abd Al-Makr.

It's pretty easy to see it unfold. The very first reply was your standard polemical response to which everyone can't help but reply to. Meanwhile the rational responses like the one just below that first reply is basically ignored.

Veeky Forums thrives on (you)'s. The rational, clear-headed posters get left behind on the ship.

Before modern times "if it bleeds it breeds" was taken literally.

It's doubtful he fucked her before her first period.

Veeky Forums is 18+, you know that, right?

There's various Christian views on that. So, that lovey dovey Jesus you like to claim is so much better than the harsh OT? He said slavery was fine, ordered genocide, proclaimed that only Jews were his chosen people, etc. If Jesus is god then he gets all the blame for the acts in the OT.

Thanks, all you did was add more ammo to the stockpile of why Jesus is an immoral thug because you can't even claim he didn't do it. You have to accept the OT, as it's in your Bible and is what justifies Christ at all. So, having that, you have to take their word for it that god was the one saying all of that terrible shit. If God IS Jesus, then Jesus said all of that terrible shit.

Good job, pal. You made my job even easier when it came to dismissing Christ as immoral trash.

>that lovey dovey Jesus you like to claim is
He isn't ''lovey dovey'', He is simply righteous.

>God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

Read the Holy Bible pal.

>tarnishing a holy prophet's message
Satan never makes deception obvious.

?

What about Joseph Smith and his magic underwear? I thought he was the Final Prophet...

If what god commands is so righteous, why did you ignore my verses I posted before? Surely you can justify those because they came from god and god is righteous.

As for your second verse, it said "god made him". That implies god made Jesus as a different entity and that he wasn't literally god, but just the messiah. You chose a verse that is used to contradict your idea that Christ and god are a single entity.

Oh, lord, thank you for this bountiful harvest of keks from your ignorant followers.