Why prophet married aisha.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are an abundant amount of stories about Briar Rabbit, Briar Bear - and lets not forget 'lil Johnni.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

One would think in 2013 after police procedurals have been so popular and common on TV for some 15 years that people would cease asking that kind of question. One at least assumes they know the answer and are betting the other guy doesn't.

The Hadiths are amusing in light of the above as everyone should know memory is nearly worthless after even a few weeks, some say days. The Hadiths were collected how many years later? After his death is what I remember reading. So pick someone you knew who is dead and tell me what they said twenty years earlier.

Compared to today fast paced life and a lot of information transfer happened every hours, and how we began to slowly leave social interaction to wireless communication... It's nothing weird if we can't even remember what is being said by our close-relatives few days ago.

Secondly, maybe you want to venture about science of narration in the study of hadith. Know who is sahaba, tabi'in and tabi'ut.

Your response to my observation of the absence of evidence that oral transmission even exists much less is reliable over years appears to be a poorly formed argument that it really existed and was accurate in a time long, long ago in a land far, far away. Does that correctly reflect your intended statement or would you like to try again?

As to 'science of narration' never heard of such a thing and i am a scientist. Care to provide some references which explain and describe this "science?" Of course not.

---

Why would you believe this oral transmission has anything to do with what really happened in history?

Oral transmission doesn't necessarily tell us what really happened, yes, but it is still reliable to a great extent, for many different things. It used to be one of the ways of preserving the past before writing was common. And especially regarding the existence of Muhammad and Jesus, peace be upon them, there are thousands of oral traditions about them and I think it would be very stupid to ignore that fact and then say that they never existed.

That is an interesting position. Would you care to produce physical evidence that it is in any way reliable? Of course not. There is none. There are many oral traditions about Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon and Luke Skywalker. So? There are also many oral traditions about Presidents Washington and Lincoln which are entirely later inventions.

The issue however is physical evidence of existence of all the characters I named above and others like King Arthur.

Now it is obvious, I hope, that if someone tells you something that he heard from some unidentified person he met on the street you would not believe it solely because someone said it.

It is equally incredible that you would believe things that originated centuries ago from unknown persons of unknown character and honesty for unknown reasons. Why would you do that?

Can you produce evidence of it's existence and accurate recounting of any event in history?

As I just said, oral traditions are not necessarily accurate all the time. They might even be entirely fabricated. However, if there is an abundant amount of oral reports about the same person throughout history, and the reports match with each other, corroborate each other, and we have specific dates and information and so on, then it certainly increases the likelihood that the person existed although it doesn't 100% prove that.

And why do you believe it is impossible to create hundreds, even thousands, of "oral reports" that match? Do you believe it is impossible invent dates also? As to "throughout history" one presumes the reports referred only to his lifetime.

The fact that religious beliefs depend heavily upon mere faith in the existence and accuracy of oral tradition does not mean it is real nor does it change the way memory works nor the way memories are stored.

I agree. See my comments above.

Nor does it change you belief in the word of unknown persons of unknown character for unknown reasons collected by unknown people of unknown character working under unknown conditions. For example, perhaps the collectors were paid by the hadith. That would be a clear invitation to invent as many as possible.

[paulpablo]

Hi,

I am seeing a lot of people looking at the prophet as someone pedhophile. But why don't you guys read this first :
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2008/0...-when.html

I am sometimes having problem reading the thought of atheist regarding moral.
- incest is not a problem.
- naked in public is not a problem.
- sex without marriage is not a problem.
- nearly everything about sex is not a problem.

Except, when it comes to certain prophet marrying a child. it looks like a big problem to them. even though :
- she was not kidnapped.
- she was married in a legal way.
- none of the people of the culture was in object to their marriage, because probably it was normal in their time.
- not even in any hadith saying she was oppressed for being married to the prophet (if there is please bring it here).

Atheism makes no statements about incest, public nudity, sex outside of marriage, or anything else, every atheists opinion is of their own individual thoughts.

You don't need to read my thoughts because I'll tell you what I think, incest is a problem if it causes mental strain, or if babies are produced.

Public nudity is a problem if it's not in an designated area designed for such things and if children are involved.

Sex without marriage isn't a problem.

The only problem I have with Muhammad marrying a 9 year old girl is if people still think it's fine in this day and age to do that.

You can print me a fucking stack of papers, statistics and pie charts with information that proves a grown adult man having sex with a 9 year old girl is fine,
But the fact is I would would be physically sickened and disgusted if I saw a grown man married with a 9 year old, and I can't even in my wildest imagination think of a day when I will see a 9 year old girl who seems of an age where she's ready to have sex.

What is your argument here? Atheists think incest is ok but not a having sex with a 9 year old girl? Well atheists don't have hadiths, we don't have a book that is always right and never wrong.

The point is we don't have a book that says incest is ok, but you do have a book that says Muhammad is a role model to be admired and he was a grown man who had sex with a 9 year old.

[Minimalist]

science of hadith.

Don't make me laugh. Robert Spencer had a lot to say about hadiths in "Did Mohammed Exist." Basically political shit put out by rivals to support their claims.

what kind of evidence do you want.

Accounts from contemporary sources not bullshit biographies written 1-2 centuries after the fact.

And no...."oral accounts" are fucking worthless.

[JesusHChrist]

Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. The lawyers/courts know it. The scientists know it. It's just the religionistas who must hang on as it's one of the last remaining shreds they have of any evidence whatsoever for their claims.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/c...iable.html

...This is consistent with statistics showing that more than three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence relied on faulty eyewitness evidence.

Even after hearing the statistics, we are reluctant to distrust a sincere eyewitness, but decades of research show that memory is neither precise nor fixed. For instance, we would expect a moment of high stress to focus the mind and sharpen recall, but the opposite is true. Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken memory.

[downbeatplumb]

Why prophet married aisha?

Because he liked little girls and could get away with it.

[frz]

Oral transmission doesn't necessarily tell us what really happened, yes, but it is still reliable to a great extent, for many different things. It used to be one of the ways of preserving the past before writing was common. And especially regarding the existence of Muhammad and Jesus, peace be upon them, there are thousands of oral traditions about them and I think it would be very stupid to ignore that fact and then say that they never existed.

writing wasn't common but, it existed. So what is the purpose of oral traditions when the people involve in those stories knew how to write?

[Rayaan]

writing wasn't common but, it existed. So what is the purpose of oral traditions when the people involve in those stories knew how to write?

The same purpose as written information.

[frz]

Probably you haven't read this quote from the given article:
Sayyidah Aisha said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109).

Really? A nine year claim to be an adult and you believe her? That's so sad.

---

Why prophet married aisha?

Because he liked little girls and could get away with it.

Basically. They all agree with it so who's there to stop them.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Polygamy was one of those distasteful customs of the orient that Rome so despised. This included Judea, aka Jews, and all the rest up of the east. Some ancient Greek even lamented that taking so many wives created a surplus of young, eager men and doomed their cities to perpetual war.

Thus it is amusing to find jewish zionists, supporters of Israel, to be in the forefront of pushing hatred of Arabs/Muslims and using this as one of their issues. This hatred began in the 1880s and lead to the constant deliberate mislabeling of Palestinians as Arabs. Palestinians of course were merely people whose ancestors had converted from Judaism to Christianity and Islam.

This hatred intensified after 1948 because the Palestinians refused to leave Palestine when the Jews told them to leave. Some of the wogs even had the audacity to shoot back. This got worse after 1967 as an jewish redneck bible thumpers were joined by the christian redneck bible thumpers aka christian zionists.

In Israel there are jewish sects not only pushing to make polygamy legal but in fact practicing it while the authorities look the other way.

Anyone making an issue today of marriage customs in 7th c. Medina has fallen for redneck propaganda against the declared enemies of murdering, thieving zionism.

Anyone making an issue of this is assuming all men are pedophiles if they have the opportunity. If there is an assumption that marrying a young girl requires sex google the story of Elvis and his wife. If you want the other side google the same for Jerry Lee Lewis.

Given that for all of human history save for the West in the last couple centuries, who a girl married was solely determined by her father it is unclear what her age at the time of marriage might matter. That the purpose of marriage was mostly financial or political age does not enter into it.

That Mohamed might have been a pedophile requires facts beyond mere marriage or the age of the girl at the time of marriage.