h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I currently have a few burning issues with Islam.

Many people who regard themselves as "true" Muslims state that the frequent stories we hear about Islamic extremists and Islamic terrorists are committed by people who are not "true" Muslims, and are not practising "true" Islam. The stories we hear about oppression against (Muslim) women in Muslim countries is not the fault of Islam, we are told, but the result of those communities' local cultures and values.

On the contrary, I would argue that violence and hatred against non-Muslims and oppression of women are a positive CHARACTERISTIC of Islam. We all know of course about September 11th, the bombing of American embassies, the continual tit-for-tat violence in Israel and Palestine, and the recent case of a Nigerian woman sentenced to death for adultery (which is not an isolated case).

Do not misunderstand me - I also have issues with Israel as a state, both in the way it itself condones violence and opression against the Palestinians, and in the way that the state of Israel was initially founded after World War 2 by (largely) the UK and USA with an arrogant Imperialistic attitude towards the native Palestinians. I also have issues with hypocritical, violent Christians, Jews, or any other religion.

My issue, with regard to Islam, is with the Quran and Muhammad. Read the Quran and you will find many verses and hadiths which condone hatred and violence against non-Muslims. Those who insult or anger Allah will burn in the fires of hell. Muslim people who decide, of their own accord, to stop believing in and practising Islam are eligible, in the words of the Quran, to be executed. Adulterous women are eligible to be executed. These are not the words of a peaceful religion. Why would a loving god (in this case Allah) wish for any of his creation (and non-Islamic infidels are also his creation) to burn in the fires of hell as punishment? Why would an all-powerful, allmighty god feel so insulted at the acts of unbelieving people?

Examine the life of Muhammad, and despite the continual arguments for him being a loving and peaceful man, one sees glaring inconsistencies.

"Merciful" Muhammad, who "mercifully" slaughtered thousands of Jews at Medina. Ah yes, we are told, but the Medina Jews forced him to do it - they gave him no other choice.... Bollocks!

Muhammad the "wise", the "just", the paedophile, who persuaded a friend of his to let him marry his friend's daughter when she was just six years old, and consummated that marriage when she was nine years old. Ah yes, we are told, but society was different in those days with different values. Muhammad's marrying of his friend's daughter allowed him to ensure that she was well cared for. That may be so, but a good, loving God surely shouldn't allow his Messenger to have sexual intercourse with a nine year old girl? Surely that should transcend any current social values? In a similar vein, Muhammad stated that it was acceptable for men to have sexual intercourse with women that had been captured in war. Fantastic policy - what a way to get initiates into your religion, combined with the promise of virgins in the afterlife for religious martyrs.

I must emphasise that I am not against ordinary Muslim people, apart from those that commit and condone violence and oppression, as I would be against any people of any nationality or religion that do the same.

I am against Islam as a religion, not by prejudice, but based on my experience of those aspects of the Quran and the story of Muhammad's life that I have read. Those passages in the Quran that condone, indeed order violence against non-Muslims are continually used by Islamic extremists to justify their actions. Therefore, they ARE "true" Muslims and are following the Quran.

By having written this article, by "attacking" Islam, I am judged by the Quran to be an enemy of Islam and therefore I am eligible to be executed for what I have just written. Such a situation itself demonstrates how "peaceful" is the religion of Islam.

some things must be said. every single one of your sources are second hand. there is no real proof that any of this has happened, except the word of those "muslims" who learned off there parents, and from books. i have only ever trusted 2 books. the Qur'an, and the book of Barnabas. i want you to tell me where in the Qu'ran it says these things or i will disregard it as false. the Qur'an is my truth and i believe little else without spiritual evidence.

I take your point that I may have this second hand. This is inevitable, as I do not understand Arabic and so I need to read the English translation of the Quran. A good website for the English version of the Quran is

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Yes, it's an American website, but an academic website without any overt bias. It only translates the Quran into English.

These are some verses I have issues with:



On killing apostates of Islam (those who renounce their Islamic faith):

Qu 4:89
They long that you should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that you may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever you find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

It's interesting to see the viewpoint of an Islamic website on this:

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=119


On disbelievers/atheists/other religions:

Qu 48:13
And if they believe not in Allah and His Messenger, we have for those who reject Allah, a blazing fire!

Qu 8:65 (Yusufali)
O Prophet! Rouse the believers to fight. If there are 20 amongst you, patient and perservering, they will vanquish 200; if 100, they will vanquish a 1000 of the unbelievers: for those are a people without understanding.

Qu 9:5 (Shakir)
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is forgiving, merciful.

Qu 5:51 (Shakir)
Oh you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.


On male/female inequality:

Qu 4:11
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.

Qu 4:15
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to their houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

Contrast with -

Qu 4:16
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is oft-returning, most merciful.


On allowing sexual intercourse with women captured in battle:

Qu 4:24 (Surah), (4:28 is similar)
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you.


On Muhammad's consummation of his marriage to 9-year old Aisha:

Sahih Bukhain, vol.7, book 62, no.64:
narrated Aisha -
that the prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. until his death).


With regard to the massacre of the Jews at Medina by Muhammad, this event is quoted in the following book.

Teach Yourself Islam
Ruqaiyyah Massood
ISBN: 0340859687

This is a book written by a devout (peaceful) Muslim to explain the Islamic faith to non-Muslims.


I would be grateful for your peaceful interpretation of these verses.

Karl

For those of you who are reading this conversation and are interested, Sheepdog McFry has written an answer to my post above at another site. If you click the link on my name, you can see his answer under the subject title "Greetings Karl". I'm afraid it's not entirely satisfactory in my opinion.

Karl

Salaam

Just so you know, I have read your points and am currently writing a lengthly reply at home. as soon as I can I will put it up on here.

Adib

salaam,

Ok I can't print my full repsonce in this time I have a avaible but I will ge started in brief.

the majority of the ayah's you qouted have been taken out of context, some thing I have had to deal with time and time again. Why is it people take one verse from some thing and then says see its been voilent.

for example ayah 9 sura 5 says roughly wait the prescribed months and then kill them where ever you find them.

I have dealt with this one and most of the others in other threads so sorry if some reading this have already read some of this.

the very next verse (ayah) after this one starts with "except" and then goes on to give details of whom is excluded from this. A little bit more on this in a short while.

The verse's before this ayah are giving the clause for when this has to be informed. that is that at the time this set of ayah's where revealed the Muslim people had many treaties with there nieghbours. what was happening though was when an opertunity to attack arouse from these nieghbours they would attack the Muslim's and then once gained victory (say attacking and looting a caravan of goods) they would ask for peace to the Muslim's which was granted. So these ayah's 9:1 -6 was revealed and basically it said that this can no longer continue and so you (the Muslim people) will issue a statement declaring that after four months time all peace treaties will be cancelled and any attack on Muslim land or trade and those under Muslim protection will be seen as a direct declaration of war and that the Muslim army will attack and not stop till the enemy are defeated or they surrender, as before the enemy used to ask for peace straight after there attack.

It then goes on to say except those that have honored there word (i.e. those who have not broken there treaties with the Muslim's) and if they do attack then you can not kill women, children, the sick, elderly and crops and cattle can not be killed. If the enemy is repentant and begs for truce then it should be granted.


I will sort out the other ayah's for you some other rime.

as for aysha's age at marriage that is some thing hotly debated. It comes between evidence and old fashioned stubberness. I have a excellant pamphlet about her true age at my house which i will qoute a little next time I'm on line. Anyway in the book he gives substantual evidence to support that she was actually older than stated in the Hadith you qouted.

as for translations of the Qur'an, the best one is by Yusaf Ali as it comes with a comprehensive Index, a running commentry, back ground info on the Sura's and footnotes which help to give a much clear understanding of what the Qur'an is saying. But it still does not come close to getting the full arabic meaning.

adib

Ok still got a little time left so lets clear up Aysha's age!

Firstly I will dispute the myth that is was a commen practice amoungst Arabs to give there daughters away at the age of around nine.

After spending many monthes about a year ago looking in to this I have yet to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage.

I will give a qoute to support that Aysha was older now:

"In my opinion, the age of Aeysha has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

* Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

* It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

* Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

* Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)

* According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

* According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

* According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

* Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

* According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

* Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

* According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

* According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.



These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.


So I think that settles the Peodiophile story. Or do you want more proof, as I have some more.

Adib

Yes please. More proof would be welcome.
Karl

i knew there would be someone out their that could prove these things. well almost anyway.

Islam covers almost evry single aspect in life. there are some situations i could create that no way of life could have an answer or reply to. for example -

God created us. We serve God. We get pleasure (in the long run) from serving God, and Pain for going in the wrong direction.

What if, we served God perfectly, didn't enjoy life one bit, just spent everyday praying, and then on the last day he changed his mind? wouldn't he get the reward for all the praying he had done previously?

or like someone in the same situation is me. i believe in Allah, i love him as much as i can, but i have fallen in love with a Christian Girl. I cannot tell my parents, as they will be "shamed" and will lock me in my room and beat me as they like to, and it is against Islam to Disobey the parents. Also, this girl really loves me too, and i know her really well, well enough to know she might do suicide if we break up. i don't want to break up with her either, i would rather be in love with her than anyone else, but i don't want to displease my parents, or Allah. I know Allah would let me love her as long as i abided by Shahadah, and followed the religion of Islam, but how am i supposed to explain it to my parents?

Dear Adib,
Thank you for your efforts in replying to my queries.

You make a good argument in defending the prophet's honour with regard to Ayesha's age. However, when were the references you quoted first made? My point is this:
You state that Ayesha's age of 6 - 9 years is quoted by Hisham ibn 'umrah, who was presumably a first-hand eyewitness to these events. You then state that some of the history of the prophet's life provided by him is unreliable, based on either his failing memory or his memories not being accurately recorded by the Iraqi people. Both of these arguments are conjecture - nothing more than an attempt to denounce his version of history, and are not based on fact. When he made this comment about Ayesha's age, in what context was he making it? Was he trying to condemn Muhammad? If he was a devout Muslim, then I doubt it. He was probably trying to recall as much about the prophet's life for posterity as was possible for him, in order to give Muslims a better, more thorough understanding of his life. If this is the case, then it is unlikely that he had any bias in making these claims, and probably said them matter-of-factly rather than in an accusatory fashion. As such, these quotes can probably be accepted as accurate.
Contrast this with most of the other references you give which attempt to disprove Ayesha's young age. Are these more modern references? Are these given by modern Muslims who find the concept of Ayesha's young age distasteful and therefore acnkowledge that this leaves the prophet open to condemnation? If so, then their views are not without bias and therefore not as authentic as the history given by Hashim ibn 'umrah.

The reference you quote about Ayesha's sister being 100 years old when she died - were there accurate birth records in those days? A story of someone being 100 years old may merely correspond to a very old age. What degree of error is there in this statement? 10 years??? That's certainly plausible, which in this case would certainly leave open the possibility her being 90 years old at her death and of Ayesha being 7-8 years old at her marriage. My argument about accurate birth records does not similarly apply to Ayesha. The question at stake is whether she was a child or not at the time and consummation of her marriage. Eyewitness accounts say that she was a child. I would argue that the degree of error in recording the age of a child is far less than that of an old person, so that an age range of 6-10 years is plausible for Ayesha at the time of her marriage. I would even suggest that the ages of old people were often exaggerated in order to inspire awe, and so cannot be regarded as accurate.
I do not dispute your argument that the marrying of young children was not common practice in the Arab community. I'm not really concerned with that, although I wouldn't be surprised if it did, just as it did in ancient European cultures. My issue is solely with Muhammad doing that as Allah's prophet/messenger.

I'm sure you are fed up with people taking excerpts of the Quran out of context and interpreting them as violent. I am equally fed up with being told that I'm taking them out of context. I do not know of any other language which is so often "misinterpreted" in translation as Arabic is. I certainly would like to know the real meaning of these supposedly peaceful verses that are incorrectly translated into English as violent/hateful. You state that one of the verses I quoted gave a time interval of 4 months and exceptions of the rule (i.e. exclusions to that rule of certain types of people and cattle). Great. So if someone is unfortunate enough to lie outside of these exceptions and beyond the 4 month rule, then he/she may be legally murdered in the name of Allah. That's OK then. Pardon me for my misinterpretation.

I have no doubt that these verses were written in the context of the surroundings/events of their time. That is just my point. They were written by a man in order to provide laws for his people based on his/their local experiences. As such, they are not valid for all eternity and are not divinely inspired. They provide justification for wars/battles/murder against their enemies in the name of Allah, and are not peaceful.

Sheepdog, I'm sorry to learn of your predicament with your girlfriend and your parents. If a white man had an Asian girlfriend (or whatever race), and his parents were to react in such an unfriendly way, simply beacuse of her race/colour/religion, they would be accused (quite rightly) of racism. It seems to me that there's a bit of double standards at work in today's society.

Karl

Lets break this up a little shall I.


The reference you quote about Ayesha's sister being 100 years old when she died - were there accurate birth records in those days? A story of someone being 100 years old may merely correspond to a very old age. What degree of error is there in this statement? 10 years??? That's certainly plausible, which in this case would certainly leave open the possibility her being 90 years old at her death and of Ayesha being 7-8 years old at her marriage. My argument about accurate birth records does not similarly apply to Ayesha. The question at stake is whether she was a child or not at the time and consummation of her marriage. Eyewitness accounts say that she was a child. I would argue that the degree of error in recording the age of a child is far less than that of an old person, so that an age range of 6-10 years is plausible for Ayesha at the time of her marriage. I would even suggest that the ages of old people were often exaggerated in order to inspire awe, and so cannot be regarded as accurate.
I do not dispute your argument that the marrying of young children was not common practice in the Arab community. I'm not really concerned with that, although I wouldn't be surprised if it did, just as it did in ancient European cultures. My issue is solely with Muhammad doing that as Allah's prophet/messenger.


"Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three."

The reason this is inportant is because there are more than one narrater for nearly every single thing the hadith mention. So why is it that at a time when the prophet had many many companions (the main bulk of hadith came from the companions of the prophet) yet only this man gives a age to when she was married and when the marriage was consumated. In light of this this hadith would be given a low credibility rating, all hadith have a credibility rating.

"It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years."

This is found out by the chain of narration which must be not broken for a hadith to be authentic. This is so it can be checked to make sure that so and so was in the same place at the right time to have heard what is know the hadith. The fact that all the hadith he gave indicating aysha's age comes from when he lived in Iraq we know that he said this near the end of his life.

"Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)"

This man is considered an expert on the reliaility of hadith as he spent his entire life studying them and the people who narrated them. Meaning he knows whats his talking about where as you do not know the first thing about Hadith.

"Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)"

This is historical fact! as one of the companions of the prophet there where many people who kept in contact with him who saw his decline in memory in later life.

"According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate."

this is considered an ace card as aysha in a hadith her self said she was a young girl when sura Al Qamar was revealed. Anyone who knows anything about hadith knows that Aysha is the most reliable source of all Hadith and that the majority of hadith are reported from her. It is also known that the 54 th sura of the qur'an was revealed before hijrah as when all the sura's where revealed it was noted when they where revealed. This gives us a 100% reliable time line indicating that Aysha was born earlier than she would have been for the unreliable hadith ages of her to be true.

"According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them"

this to is based on very well known and numerous hadith reported by several different people and indicates that Aysha must have been at least 15 years old when this conflict was fought. An so again contradicts the weaker hadith.

"According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage." Again Asma's age is known by hadith which where very accurate, for instance if some one died aged 95 the people reporting it would say 95 and not round it up to 100. If they did not know her age they would try and find out and state that they did not know it but so and so said she was such and such a age.

"According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady"."

All of this has been deduced by hadith as well as the one below this one.

"According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage."


An just so you know the majority of Islamic history regarding events and people come from Hadith and notes of historians living at that time.

So lest ask you a question.

If in a court of law you have a old man who's memory is slipping is giving evidence about some thing that happened many years ago in direct contradiction of the facts of 20+ other witnessess to the events being talked about who's stories all agree with one anothers whom is the court going to believe.

The point is there is over realming evidance from people who where witnessess who stated there facts as the events happened that prove that what the man is saying is inaccurate.

Adib

Ok I tried giving you the easyier to read explanation and you have given me know choice but to give you the whole spiel about sura 9 ayah 5 and I will do the same thing with all the others for you as well. Mannnnnnn my fingers are going to ache joke.


Sura 9 is following on from Sura 8 which dealt with the questions arising from the outset of the life of a new organised nation which are:

1) Questions of Defence when under attack

2) Distribution of war acquisitions after victory

3) Virtues needed for concerted action, clemency and consideration for one's own and for enemies in the light of victory.

Sura 9 is dealing with what to do if the enemy breaks faith and/or is guilty of treachery. No nation can go on if the other one break’s a treaty at will. The faith above we are referring to is the faith that the other party will not break the treaty. If a treaty is broken then a period of four months should be allowed after the denunciations of the treaty and that due protection should be accorded in the intervening period so that there is always a door open for repentance and reunion with the people of Allah (Muslims). But if they do not make peace and war must be undertaken then it must be pushed with vigour. To summarise this if they break a treaty then you give them four months warning. If in that four months they come and say sorry and wish to make a new treaty and show they want peace, then Muslims should make a new treaty with them and should not harm them. If they do not make peace and leave you alone and do not threaten or attack you in that four month period then Muslims should not attack until they do. If they attack Muslims in that four months period and continue to do so after the four months then Muslims may then attack them and keep attacking them until they do ask for peace or do not attack you any more. Meaning that you should go to war with them but if they afterwards seek peace then you must grant them peace.

To sum up the first 3 sections of the sura.

ayaats 1 -29) Treaties with those pagans who have treacherously broken there their terms are denounced, but for four months time is given for adjustments or repentance. Pagans to be excluded from the sacred Mosques. Infidelity to be fought.

Ayaats 30-42) The people of the book have obscured the light of Allah, but the truth of Allah must prevail over all. We must be ready to fight for our faith if threatened or we are not worthy to up hold Allah’s banner.

Ayaats 43-72) The hypocrites and there double dealings - there evil ways pointed out. There punishment will be sure as the blessings of the righteous, referring to the day of judgement.

The verse usually quoted is verse five and so we will look at verse 1 to 6 with notes, to see how it is not actually being violent as it sounds on its own.

(9:1) A (Declaration) of immunity from Allah and his messenger, To those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances:-

The word immunity comes from the Arabic word Baraat but it may not be a word correctly represented for the Arabic word. The general meaning (sense) of the word was found in the above text but in verse 3 the periphrasis 'dissolve treaty obligations' goes some way to explain what it fully means. The Pagans and enemies of Allah very often made peace treaties with the Muslims. Unfortunately they always seemed to break there treaties when it was in there best interest. Where as the Muslims never broke the treaties. After some years it became apparent that that the treaties where no good so the Muslims decided to dissolve them. When this was done they where given four months notice and a chance for those who faithfully observed there pledges to continues there alliance.

(9:2) Go ye, then for four months, (as you will), throughout the land, but know that you cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject him.

The 'reject him' is referring to Islam and/or the peace treaties signed with the Muslim people.

(9:3)And an announcement from Allah and his messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the great pilgrimage, that Allah dissolve treaty obligations with the pagans. If then, they repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah, and proclaim a grievous chastisement to those who reject faith.

(9:4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom you have entered in to alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of there term: For Allah loves the righteous.

The sacred duty of fulfilling all obligations of all kinds to Muslims and non Muslims on public and private life is a cardinal feature of Islam. What it means is that the Muslims don't break all the treaties. They have to spend time and think and after care full consideration towards cases where there has been fidelity and not treachery. Muslims are enjoined to give the strictest fidelity as it is part of righteousness and our duty to Allah.

(9:5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans where ever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers, and pay Zakaat then open the way for them: for Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful.

This is the ayaat usually quoted as a example of violence. The emphasis is on the first clause. Meaning it is only after the first four months of grace have past and the other party has not shown any signs of desisting from their treacherous designs by right conduct. Then the state of war intervenes - between faith and unfaith. When war becomes inevitable, it must be prosecuted with vigour. As a English phrase says you can not fight with kid gloves. The fighting takes many forms but there is room for repentance and amendment from the guilty party. If that takes place then the Muslims duty is towards forgiveness and making peace. The repentance must be sincere and is shown through conduct. In that case Muslims are not to bar the doors against the repentant. Muslims must do all we can to make this easy by remembering that Allah is oft-forgiving and most merciful.

(9:6) If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men without knowledge.

Even amongst the enemies of Islam there may be those who do not wish to fight. If they ask for Asylum then it is granted them so they can hear the words of Allah. If they accept the words then they become Muslims and brothers to you and no further questions arise. If they do not see the way of Allah and turn to Islam then they receive double protection :

1) from the Muslims fighting against his people,

2) From his own people because they detached them selves from them.

Both kinds of protection should be ensured for the person. Meaning they should be escorted to a place where they can be safe. Such people only err from ignorance and there may be much good in them.



I don't know how much time I have but I will try and right out another sura anayasis for you if I have time.

adib

Actually Sheepdog_McFry I can answer all his points but I don't have much time on my hands so I'm having to go little by little.

sorry for your problems regarding your personnal life. The problem is that most Muslim' s these days have been influenced by culture that is un Islamic. For instance a lot of Pakistanis and Bengali's are following culture based on Hinduism more that there faith regarding personnal matters such as marriage etc.

I full know hao you feel though as I am a revert, meaning I am a white man who embraced Islam, I have been rejected time and time again on the ground of my colour and as Karl says it is racism. Me and him agree on some thing......

anyway stay strong and pray for Allah's help. your parents wont change there mind trust me I know, but have you talked to her about Islam. If she becomes a Muslim it would make things go down alot easier with your parents. Its more acceptable for a asian man to marry a white girl than it is vice versa from my experience.

the reason I suggest this is also because it helps you get out of your dilema.

If she became a Muslim then your parents not allowing you to marry her will be unIslamic and so you would not have to do as they say because we are told that if your parents try to make you do some thing unislamic then you can ignore them on that issue.

If you do get married, things with the family will calm down usually after the first child, as they wont to see there grand child. I have that on good authority from two white Muslims I know who are married to asian men. One an arab the other a Bengali.

Good luck in any case.

Adib qasim

Salaam

Ok here I am again, firstly can I ask why you have given a web address for a Qur'an translation and yet it is so obvious that not only have you not read the Qur'an but you have not even checked the ayah's that you have given. I tell you on some of the ones you put down I nearly laughed because its so tragic.

Secondly as far as the auther of the book "teach your self Islam" goes I have looked her up and she is a white revert to Islam who has written several books most towards GCSE level. the reason I mention this is that she has no scholorship in Islam or any thing and I have not heard or found any references to a massacure at Medina. I will look into it further.

Now then to move on to the ayah's that you printed.

Firstly I will deal with sura 4 ayah 89. To understand this ayah you need to have read from ayah 88 to ayah 91. Let me give you the ayah in the context as it is found in the Qur'an.

88) Why should you be devided in to two parties about the hypocrites?
God has upset them for there (evil) deeds. Would you guide those whom God has out of the way? For those whom God has thrown out of the way, never shall they find the way.

89) They but wish that you should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as them): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; (And in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

90) Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace)., or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you s well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantesss) of peace, then God has opened no way
for you (to war with them).

91) Other you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb there to: If they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever you get them: In their case We have provided you a clear argument against them.

And now you have the context it appears in the Qur'an I will give you the history of when it was revealed and then give you anaysise of the ayah's so that you can see what is being said.

these ayah's are referring to the desertion of the hypocrites at Uhud which nearly caused a disaster to the Muslim cause. That is that a portion of the Muslim army fled from the coming battle severaly weakening the Muslim forces. Amoungst the Muslim's of Media there was a division of what to do with them, on one hand a group wanted to put them to the sword due to there anger at the betrayal, whila the other group wanted to leave them alone. These Ayah's where revealed to Muhammad and by using them a policy wa applied that avoided both extremes.

It was clear that the people where a danger to the Muslim community if they were admitted in to councils, and they were a source of demoralisation. But while every caution was used no extrme measures were taken against them. On the contrary, they were given a chance of making good.

If they made a sacrifice for the cause (ayah 89), their conduct purged their previous cowardice, and their sincerity entitled them to be taken back. but if they deserted the Muslim community again, they were to be treated as enemies with the added penelty of desertion, which is enforced by all nations when at war. Even so a humane clauss was made for two cases specified in ayah 90.

the 'flee' mentioned in ayah 89 in arabic is derived from th arabic word 'hijrat', the word 'hijrat' means 'to flee from all that is forbidden' and includes the fleeing from a place were religion can not be practised to submiting ones self in a time of was to discipline and refraining from infringing orders issued.
This is what is ment in the context, and by doing this the individual has proved his fidelity and may be treated as a member of the community at wat.

But on the other hand if he by false pretences comes into the inner council merely to betray them, he may be dealt with as a traitor or deserter and so he can be punished for his treason or desertion. If he escapes he can be treated as an enermy and is entitled to no mercy. He is regarded as being worse than the enermy as he claimed to be on your side inorder to spy on your actions in order to help the enermy.

Ayah 90 starts with the word @except', this exception is aimed at the 'sieze them and slay them', which is the penelty for repeated desertion. The first exception is where the deserter has taken asylum with a tribe (today country) with whom there is a peace treaty and amity. the reason for this is because the tribe may not be Muslim but in light of there treaty they will keep the man from fighting against the Islamic forces, or in todays words they would 'disarm and render him harmless'.

The second case for exception is when the person from his own desire does not wish to take up arms against Islam but also does not want to take up arms against the enermy. For example it may be from the tribe he was born in is the enermy being fought. In this instance the person should make a real approach, giving guarantess of his sincerity on this issue and that he will cause no harm to the Muslim people. In this day and age we would call it 'being put on parole'.
but this provision is much milder than in todays military codes and practices which only grant the privilage to enermy prisoners, not to those who have deserted from the army granting them parole. The hyporcrites were in that position, but policy and humanity treated them with great leniency.

Also in ayah 90 is where it say 'who approach you' , this does not mean the actual physical act but rather the mental frmae of mind or attitude. The heart is mentioned to indicate sincerety.
when the people sincerely promise not to fight against you, do not pursue them. The ayah goes onto say that if they wished to fight then they could have fourght against you and so made your own difficulties increase, so there neutrality should be seen as an advantage in its own right.
so long as your satisfied that they are sincere and their acts support their promises then yo should leave them alone in peace.

ayah 91 goes onto say that seperate from the above, there is a class that are treacherous and dangerous who will make every effert to win your confidance but will betray you time and time again. these people when found out should be treated as open enermies keep them not in your midst. If they give quarntees of peace and do not fight against you then that is well and good.

If not they are deserters activily fighting along side the enermy. They have openly given you proof and so can be fairly siezed and slayed in war as deserters and enermies.

So you see the very first ayah you was printed was out of context along with the rest of the ones you printed. After there initial desertion they where given the choice to not fight and stay and live peacefully with the Muslim's or go where they like, or they could leave the muslim community to else were. Those who stayed had to promise not to cause trouble. those who stayed and then broke that promise by confiding with the enermy etc etc, where to be treated as deserters and that they had there chance to not get invovled.

Anyway I don't think I have time to deal with another ayah today so I will leave it as that for now.

Islam is like the crowd at a football match in some ways. In the crowd who are watching the match the majority just want to watch the game and have fun peacefully. But there is a small group of people who just want to cause trouble and voilence.

adib

i've done some research on some of the things that were said too. Islam does not Oppress Women. If it does Oppress Women, then it Oppresses them as equally as it oppresses men. Women are allowed to have an education as much as men, they are allowed jobs, they are allowed everthing. the only thing that is different from other reigions is the Hijab for modesty and that men and women have to be seperate. the reasons for this is to protect women. Women are "tools of pleasure" in the eyes of many men. even a few muslims are slightly perverted. it is in the nature of men to be attracted to women. if a man doesn't know what a woman looks like, he's not gonna leap at her or marry her straight away. HE has to get to know her first. this leads to trust which is the basis of a strong marriage. yes many muslim familys have arranged marriages, that is completely Unislamic and Wrong.

its interesting to know Abid is a convert. converts are usually the strongest of muslims, because they want to be muslim and were not forced into it. It is better that the argument is coming from you than me, because i was brought up a Muslim and have not studied the religion as much as i ought to have, because my parents just want me to finish the Qu'ran as fast as i can, and then tell all the other families "oh our son has read the Qu'ran 50 times, what about yours?".

It is also true that it isn't a minority of muslims that are trouble causers. to be more accurate, it is the ones that were brought up in a hard lifestyle, such as palestinians, and Afghanistanis, who know nothing else, having been persecuted for being "punk". if you ask a muslim convert, or a muslim scholar who has been to saudi Arabi and studied there(he must have studied in the Prophets mosque, because that is where all the knowledge of Islam is stored in its Library, and i will definitely trust anything that a man who has studied there says) he will tell you everything that you need to know about Islam. in the end, you will find there is nothing you can say about Islamic Monotheism or its way of life.


If you read the Qu'ran in Gothic Arabic, and read it properly, with the right accent and notes, and understand what it says, you will find it is very very much convincing.

Also:

do not trust internet sites. read from the actual book. Many internet sites were created by Muslim haters, who want to corrupt the religion.

I agree with your points except one tiny point, thats just down to definition and I know what you ment but just want to clarify it. that is where you said :

"yes many muslim familys have arranged marriages, that is completely Unislamic and Wrong."

Arranged marriages are completely different from forced marriages which is I think what you ment.

a arranged marriage is where the parents or guardians find some one they thing will get along with there son or daughter. The two are allowed to meet and talk as long as there is someone present to stop naughty things from happening. If they both like each other then they can get married if not then they do not get married. Meaning the parents bring them together and if the children agree from there own choice then they can marry. This is allowed in Islam as long as now force is put on the son or daughter in question.

Whilst a forced marriage is where the parents mentally or physically force there child to marry someone against there wishes. This is extremely against Islam.

Adib Qasim

Ok karl I will continue with the ayah's you qouted now.

We got as far as ayah 13 from sura 48, so here I will show what is ment in this ayah.

"And if they believe not in God and his apostle, we have prepared, for those who reject God, a blazing fire"

you seem to believe that this is telling Muslim's that this is what they should do to unbelievers but inactual fact it is not saying this at all. This is a warning from Allah. The question is who is it a warning too? It is actually a warning to all people including Muslim's and was actually revealed because of the actions of a group of Muslims.

allow me to elaborate if you will.

The ayah in question was revealed, along with the majority of sura 48, in February 628 AD or in the Islamic month Zul-qad A.H 6, A.H meaning after hijrah.
We Muslims knoe this because of the mention of the treaty of Hudaibiya which I will explain.

Hudaibiya is a plain just north of Mecca and quite far south of Medina. at this time as indicated by A.H 6 the treaty here took place some 6 years after the Muslim's had moved from Mecca to Medina.
according to arab custon of that time every arab was entitled to visit the sacred enclosure in Mecca unarmed, and fighting was prohibited during the sacred months which included the month of Zul-qad.
In A.H 6 the Prophet decided to perform the lesser pilgramage known as Ummah in arabic,
So the Prophet set of with his followers, all unarmed, and a large following joined him, to the number of around 1500.

the Pegan autocracy at Mecca took alarm at this and in breach of the Arab tradition decided to prepare to prevent the peaceful party from performing the rites of pilgramage. the pegan forces marched to meet the unarmed party, and so the prophet and his followers diverted to the west and set camp at Hudaibiya where negotiations took place.
a peace treaty was concluded there and it was stipulated that there would be peace betweeb the two parties for ten years between the two forces and their allies. Any tribe or person was free to join either party or make an alliance with either of the parties. It also stated that any Quraish person from Mecca whom was under guardian ship and wished to join the Prophet would have to have the quardians permission or they would be sent back to the guardian but if a Muslim whom was under guardianship wished to join the Quraish then he could do so and would not be handed back to the guardian. finally the Prophet and his followers would not be allowed access to perform pilgramage this year but after this year they could do so as long as they where unarmed.

The first part of this sura is talking about this treaty and the ayah you mentioned is speaking of the lesson's learned at Hudaibiya.
As I said before it was aimed at a group of the Muslim's who proved slight doubt in faith. To read in context you will need to read from ayah 11 through toayah 14 to get some of the general idea of what it is referring to.

Sura 48 ayah 11:

The desert Arabs who lagged behind will say to thee: "We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks, herds and our families: Do you then ask forgivness for us." They say with there tongue what is not in their hearts. Say: "who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your behalf with God, if His will is to give you some loss or to give you some profit? But God is well acquainted with all that you do.

ayah 12:

"Nay, you thought that the Apostle and the believers would never return to their families; this seemed pleaseing in your hearts, and you concieved an evil thought, for you are a people lost (in wickedness).

ayah 13:

And if they believe not in God and His Apostle, We have prepared for thse who reject God, a blazing fire!

ayah 14:

To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills: but God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

What the above is talking about is that when the Prophet started the journey from Medina to Mecca which ended at Hudaibiya, he asked all Muslims to join him in the pious undertaking of the lesser pilgramage. While the over realing majority was with him some of the desert tribes decided not to go. Allah is telling the reader here that these people lacked faith and did not trust God enough and so came up with excuses to why they could not go, because they thought that the Meccan's would take advantage of the unarmed party and kill the Apostle and his followers. The trust that they lacked is that God would have protected them from harm. the excuses that they came up with were an after thought and in anycase made after the return of the Prophet and his party with the enhanced prestige due to the new treaty signed.

their false excuses were made on a calculation of wordly profit and loss, what they ignored was the spiritual gains they would have earned if they had in fact gone.
But what ever their motives were or what they said they were doing God knows which is truth and which is lie.

Ayah 12 tells us that these Muslim's were so shakey in their faith that they thought the worst would happen and that the Quraish would kill the unarmed group. Deep within their hearts they would not really have cared if that had been the case as they were used to wickedness and rejoiced in the suffering of others.
ayah 13 goes on to say that these people will be placed in a fire of their own disappointment . i.e. Hell, as in most religions failing to believe or to have faith in god will see you go to Hell.
Ayah 13 leeds in to ayah 14 which is saying that evil must be punished but their is always away to escape, through repentance to God. God's mercy will forgive; and mercy is the main feature in God's universe.

So you see this ayah is actually a warning to Muslim's and non believers that one should not put physical wants before spiritual needs. It is also a lesson in that it is telling us that those who are weak in faith will allways be proven wrong by those who are strong in faith as they put their trust in God.


I will deal with Sura 8 ayah 65 tomorrow if I can inshallah, which is by the way out of context as usual.


Adib Qasim

Oh by the way I will be getting a copy ofthat book teach your self Islam on the 9th of this month. I will check her source's out.

Adib Qasim

Blimey!
Adib, although we have differing points of view, I really respect and appreciate the effort you have made to explain your viewpoint. It has probably taken up an awful lot of your time and I am truly grateful.

In a similar manner, you have written so much that it's difficult to answer all of your points.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of the age of Ayesha's sister. I'm still not convinced that an ancient society could accurately keep a record of someone's true age when they reached even 70 years+.

The point you make about the Islamic scholar: I'm sure he knows much more than I do about hadith, but this does not automatically mean that the conclusions he makes are OBJECTIVE. He is a (modern?) devout Muslim who would naturally have a bias in favour of Islam. Even though he may truly believe that he is objective, there is still the possibility that his judgement would be clouded in matters that appear distasteful to the modern reader. As a point in case, has he ever accepted that anything apparently distasteful in Islam is actually true, or has he concluded that all distasteful statements/histories are of questionable validity, while all honourable histories are acceptable?

With regard to evidence in a court of law: It would initially appear to be damning evidence with a 20-1 against opinion. However, a good barrister working for that one person ought to research and question those other 20 on their (religious) beliefs and what vested interests they would have in denouncing the opinion/story given by that 1 person. Just because it's 20-1 against, does not automatically imply that that one person is incorrect. Obviously, it would be up to an impartial jury to decide who is more objective and correct. Unfortunately, impartiality and objectivity are hard to come by in matters of religion.

The point you make about the rules governing war with pagans/infidels etc: If this had actually occurred in practice, we would expect Islam to have spread geographically by purely peaceful means. If you read the history of Islam, you will find that this is not the case. The powerful Ummayad, Ottoman, and Abbasid empires spread their influence by powerful military strength, not through peaceful assimilation. The military conquests they achieved only served to strengthen their thirst for more victory/expansion through Jihad. You may argue, perhaps correctly, that this was Islam's response against oppressive Christianity, and that the Christian nations had actually started the trouble. This may well be so, although it's probably not as black & white as that statement. However, what of the Abbasids overturning the Ummayads? This was a dispute between disparate Muslim groups over who should have control of the Caliphate. It was so nasty that, even after the Ummayads were subdued, when the Abbasid rulers invited the Ummayad leaders to a meal to discuss the victory (as good Islam would no doubt advise) instead, the Abbasids betrayed the trust of the Ummayad leaders and slaughtered them at the dining table, and dined over their corpses.

Now, you will probably argue that this action was not truly Islamic. However, these actions were performed by early Muslims in the name of Islam. I would then argue that I would prefer the Christian viewpoint on violence and oppression of turning the other cheek to a violent oppressor (this is supposed to have the effect of making the oppressor realise, by making eye contact with him, of your humanity and therefore for him to question his actions). You would no doubt have immediately spotted the flaw in my argument. Despite Christ having said this, Christian nations have been some of the most oppressive nations in the world, to non-Christians and to Christians alike (usually denounced as heretics by Orthodox Christianity). If I would then argue, "yes, but although the oppression/violence was carried out by the Roman Catholic Church, (which was at that time the principal guardian of the Christian faith and its doctrine), it was corrupted by humanity and not acting in a truly Christian manner, and therefore not representative of TRUE Christianity," I'm sure you would feel that that was a very weak argument in the defence of Catholicism/Christianity. I certainly do. I would put far more faith in judging people on their actions, and making account of in whose or what name they make their actions. All violent Christians, Jews, and Muslims justify their actions on excerpts of scripture from their own relevant holy books. You may argue that they are taking them out of context. This may be so, but it nevertheless is a fact that so many texts are taken out of context to justify violence/oppression. Therefore, they are still acting as true Christians/Jews/Muslims in carrying out these horrendous acts. It is this that I still find difficult to accept, that a true all-powerful God would allow His message to be so corrupted by humanity to allow bloodshed in His name. That was the same point I made in my last post. The writings in the Quran (and Christian Bible & Jewish Torah) are products of the times and circumstances they were written in - not eternally valid and not divinely inspired.

Karl

Ok regarding Aysha's age you are over looking several of the key points.
Even if you don't count Aysha's sisters age she would still have to have been at least 15 at the time of marriage due to her being a child when one of the sura's where revealed, an we know when that was revealed.

The point I was making about 20 - 1 is a strong one which I will explain. Firstly there are far more than 20 different hadiths from different people that contradict the Hadith you stated.
Secondly all these Hadiths were reported soon after the event some times days some times week's. Only a few where amny years after, an example of one is where Aysha tells us she was a little girl when such and such a Sura was revealed. She should know better than anyone her age.

All the people who reported the other Hadith we can use to work out aysha's age are just as trustworthy if not more so thant the man who revealed the Hadith you qouted.

So its not as simple as it seems. What you would have in the court case is the following. The word of an old man who's memory is slipping and is talking about an event some 20 odd years ago.

On the other hand you have the statements of people whom are beyond reproach in trustworthyness who where not only there at the time but also reported the events that contradict what the old man is saying just after the events they are reporting happened.

On top of that you have the lady who is been referred to in the old mans hadith quite clearly saying that she was a little girl when a sura of the Qur'an was rvealed which in its self was revealed some 6 - 5 years or so before she could have been born if she was six when she married the prophet. And that she helped the wounded at an early battle and she had to have been at least 15 to have actually been allowed to help the wounded.

Meaning there is over realming evidence from several eye witnesses and the lady her self that is extremely reliable that all goes against what one man is saying who's statements where reported very near the date they happened and the old man is not as reliable as the other witnesses and is talking about an event that happened many many years ago.


Anyway Muslim's admit that a lot of the Caliphs after the Prophet died were not practising proper Islam. It is said in many many Islamic books.

Your comments regarding the expansion of the Muslim empire by the sword is over exaggerated. It has been proven with out doubt by modern historians Muslim and non Muslim alike that this is a complete myth. Yes a lot of places were taken by warfare that was usually provoked, but many places were not taken by conquest but rather by trade.

For example what Muslim army went to North Africa and what Muslim army went to Malaysia and other such countries?

As for Christian aggresion may I point out the crusades. Started by the Pope under false pretencises that the Christians were suffering in Jerusalum at the hands of the Muslim's.

Lets do a comparative. For a thousand years Jerusalem was under Islamic rule and Muslim's lived peacefully side by side with Christians and Jews.

In the crusades when it was taken over by Christians all Muslim's and Jews living their were slaughtered and many holy places burnt down.

The qur'an has remained unchanged since it was revealed and remains uncorrupted unlike the bible and Torah. People like Osama bin Laden use qoutes like the ones you gave to prove to young frustrated uneducated Muslim's that what they are doing is right. By uneducated I mean as in Islamic studies etc. The reason for this is because people have got it in to their head that you can only read the Qur'an in arabic. This is not true. When doing prayers or reading the whole qur'an during ramadhan then yes it should be in arabic, but at other times you should read it in a language that you understand.

For example many Pakistani's speak Urdu and can not understand Arabic. But they recite the Qur'an in arabic and have no idea what is being said. So when someone like Osama comes and says that it says this this and that they believe him as they have no idea at all what the Qur'an is actually saying. So voilence usually comes from ones own ignorance of what the Qur'an is saying.


One thing troubles me. Why did you provide a ling to a translation of the Qur'an when its so blatent that you have not read it or checked these ayah's you printed your self?

did you just pull these ayah's of a anti Islam site and not check the sources? Naughty boy.

Adib Qasim