Why prophet married aisha.

[remy]

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).

[Minimalist]

Learn the phrase "consenting adults."

Report back when you have mastered it.

[remy]

Learn the phrase "consenting adults."

Report back when you have mastered it.

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).

- You shouldn't compare between two ages using the same law. There's a big different of age between today and 7th century. Not even maturity can be compared.
- Have you asked those lived just a century before us. There's a lot of people said even their grand or grand grand mother married as early as 12 years old.

And thanks for reminding about the word by the way. Probably you should read something about it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
See how the age of consent was set as low as 7 in this article. (Depends on century).

Then can I say most of the man in the few last century was pedophile.

[Minimalist]

Sayyidah Aisha said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109).

If you believe that bullshit you are as bad as fucking mohammed....except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence than jesus so you are pretty much out there on your own.

[remy]

Sayyidah Aisha said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109).

If you believe that bullshit you are as bad as fucking mohammed....except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence than jesus so you are pretty much out there on your own.

Perhaps you want to make a bit study about the science of hadith. There's a lot of read about how hadith work you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio..._of_Hadith

Basically there're three types of hadith : authentic, weak (dhaif) and even false (maudhu').

The key of this science lies in it's sanad (chain of narrators) and matan (arabic content). I know not much about the detail, because it's quite a big field, plus i am not even a scholar.

except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence

what kind of evidence do you want.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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
...

Mohammed married a girl that age because of the Genesis story saying Abraham married a girl of that age. It is just copycat.

[Rayaan]

except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence than jesus so you are pretty much out there on your own.

And you ask for "contemporary evidence" as if oral transmission has nothing to do with history ...

Strange.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence

what kind of evidence do you want.

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.

---

except mohammed has no more contemporary evidence for his existence than jesus so you are pretty much out there on your own.

And you ask for "contemporary evidence" as if oral transmission has nothing to do with history ...

Strange.

Why would you believe this oral transmission has anything to do with what really happened in history? Can you produce evidence of it's existence and accurate recounting of any event in history?

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.

[remy]

what kind of evidence do you want.

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.

[Rayaan]

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.

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.

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.