polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:


Dolls? Why didn't she just turn on the telly, I know I would.

Thats quite pathetic Baron. You realise your argument boils down to saying "various hadeeth refer to Aisha being prepubescent at some undisclosed time and we have no idea whether it was before or after her marriage had been consummated"?

Its quite comical actually, and I have great difficulty believing that even you would run this with a straight face.

Simple question: is there any reference anywhere in these hadeeth to the time frame - specifically in relation to when her marriage was consummated? Anything at all??

As far as I know there is only one authentic hadith (and at least one less authentic hadith) that puts any sort of timeframe of her puberty in relation to when her marriage was consummated, and that is the one she says she went through puberty while she was still living with her parents, which we know was before the hijra and before moving in with The Prophet.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:


These words:  "who has not reached the age of puberty" do not appear in the original Arabic. They have just been added in by some translator.

The Arabic word used is "jaariyah" which simply means female youth and does not really indicate pre-pubescence or otherwise. The Arabs used to consider anyone under the age of 40 to be a youth so you can't read too much into it. The Arabs in those times used to refer to their middle-aged female slaves as "jaariyah".




Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:


These words regarding puberty do not appear in the original Arabic, but have been added in English by some translator which is why they appear in brackets.

Not only does the original wording not mention puberty, but it does not mention whether Aaishah was even married at that point.



Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:


Nope. This hadeeth does not mention being married or not reaching puberty either.

You really seem to grasping at straws. Why your desperation to manufacture this?

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


Well I'm trying to think of specific examples. Brian didn't provide any. Can you think of any? I seem to be the only one trying to make sense of this.

Muhammad's "examples" are under a special category called "sunna". Thats what I interpret from what you and Brian term "standards". Its not my choice of term, so I can only try and interpret what you mean. After all, what else is there besides the "standards" that are set out in the examples in the hadeeth?

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


I don't recall it. Its fairly safe to say though that it doesn't place her pre-pubescency specifically in the timeframe after her consummation, am I right? Is it like Baron's "evidence" of simply citing a hadith that she was prepubescent at some completely unknown point in time?

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


Perhaps you missed it:

Quote:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/176#176

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


The hadith that referenced the ruling was specifically about the punishment.

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


Its irrelevant. You made the claim that he said nothing about it, I pointed out that he clearly disapproved of it. Thus you are clearly fabricating the hadith.

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


I see, so it is the same "evidence" Baron posted

What is the context then FD? Both hadith clearly indicate that she was married at the time - but we already knew she was prepubescent at the time of marriage. The question is was it after the 3 years Muhammad waited to consummate the wedding? You and Baron seem very sure that it was. Prey tell, where is the proof from these hadeeth that it was a time after consummation? Actual evidence please.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:


You are the one using this hadith as evidence to when Aisha reached puberty-
Quote:

Her father Abu Bakr was one of the first if not the first convert to Islam, he was a neighbor to Mohammad and Khadija.
Aisha was 6 when she married Mohammad, she must have sen her parents following Islam before she married that dirty old pedo,you have pathetically tried to argue she reached puberty before age 6.

Abu Bakr was reluctant to let his 6 year old daughter marry Mo,Mo said his imaginary friend in the sky called Allah made it lawful for him to marry this child.
Quote:



Aisha got her first menses on the journey to the very first Hajj at around 15 years of age,she was prepubescent at age 9 when dirty old man had sex with her.

Why did Aisha have no children with Mohammad,why did his other wives produce so few children, was Mohammad impotent in his final years?

Just want to go back on a point FD made earlier that he never did justify.

Talking about the treaty Muhammad's city-state of Medina had with the jewish tribes that lived there he states:

Quote:


I asked for clarification on this "renegging" of the treaty, to which FD answered:

Quote:


Picking up on his stated admission that the terms of the agreement were "unknown", I pointed out that:

Quote:


In desperation, FD attempts sarcasm in an attempt to deflect this glaring hole in his argument, but only digs himself in deeper:

Quote:


I then spelled out the obvious, to which he (probably wisely) stopped responding:

Quote:


Naturally like all of FDs refuted claims it got lost in the pages and pages of "noise" of obfuscation and endless nitpicking.

But I feel its worth reiterating some key points that are rather fundamental to the overall debate every now and then. Here FD makes a rather key claim that Muhammad "one by one" broke the terms of the treaty - but then spectacularly fails to substantiate this with anything at all - and in the end quietly left it alone.

Lets go into more detail:

1. asked to clarify the claim that Muhammad "renegged" the agreements with the jews, FD responds by referencing a wiki article that states it is "unknown" whether the agreements compelled the members to actively fight for each other (in the event of an external attack), or merely not attack each other.

- firstly, as already pointed out, FD is merely highlighting the fact that the terms of the agreements are unknown, thus such a definite statement as Muhammad "renegged" on them "one by one" is obviously absurd.

- Secondly, in regards to the wiki article FD is referring to, there is dispute regarding whether the Banu Qurayza were obliged to actively support the muslims, or merely remain neutral. But what is *NOT* in dispute (according to the article) is that the Banu Qurayza were not to either attack or conspire with the muslim's enemies. (An obvious point, but anyway). The article makes it very clear that there is no dispute on this point. And it is a *FACT*, that FD never even bothered to argue against, that the Banu Qurayza conspired with Muhammad's enemies while they were besieging the muslims.

2. After being so embarassingly off the mark with his wiki reference, FD then resorts to sarcasm, making the point that of course any genuine treaty wouldn't have include beheading people and/or driving them out. Therefore, by committing these acts, its Muhammad who broke it.

So after establishing that the jews had *ALREADY* broken the agreements by negotiating with a hostile enemy (again, FD never tries to dispute), it is somehow Muhammad who really reneged on them for acting against these traitors! Dare I make the painfully obvious point? - that once an agreement is broken, the agreement is broken - and people typically get punished for committing treason. Duh!

Quote:


For spousal rape? Islam obviously treats spousal rape differently and it is deceptive of you to claim any different. The concept of consent does not even make sense in the context of concubinage. Last time you made this claim you were still under the delusion that Muhammed did not have sex with his concubines.

Quote:


The detail is well known. He expelled two of the tribes on the weakest of pretexts and slaughtered the third.

Quote:


I do not have to know the details of the agreement to know that powerful tribes would not surrender themselves to an agreement that would see them expelled over comparitively minor or imaginary crimes.

Quote:


You are missing the point Gandalf. Muhammed had already renegged on the agreement and booted out two other Jewish tribes. He obviously had no intention at all of acting honestly and it is absurd for Muslims to expect that the Banu Qurayza would stick to that agreement and support a man who was obviously in the process of expelling anyone who did not bow down to him.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2014 at 12:45pm:


Correct. Thats all that needs to be said.