Discussion:
Allah paving the way for the sexual desires of Mokhammet!!
(too old to reply)
RBRK
2005-10-04 01:41:37 UTC
Permalink
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou
hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those
whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine
uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's
side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the
daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and
a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet
desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the
(rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them
concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou
mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
m***@hotmail.com
2005-10-04 13:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou
hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those
whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine
uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's
side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the
daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and
a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet
desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the
(rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them
concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou
mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
Mjaffery wrote:

This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might has
malice. First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody to mary him.
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's
father for Ayesha. Even then Muhammad (SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to
his house till she was mature and on the insistence of her father. I
suspect the purpose of offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will
not write it here. It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that but unfortunately after Muhammad
(SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom. Still in NIKKAH, girl is
asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to mary him in nikkah.
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were destitute. helpless and old
including HAFZA, daughter of OMER. Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU
BAKER rejected her. Read history. Muhammad (SAWW) wanted to help them
and Allah ordered him to do so. Please get your facts straight.
Unfortunately most of the so called Hadiths coined by so called
muslims/muslim scholars about the sexuality of Muhammad (SAWW) are
fake- They did so just to cover their misdeeds.
Syed Manzoor H. Jaffery
Stamford, CT. 06905 USA
RBRK
2005-10-04 14:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by RBRK
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto
whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand
possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and
the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters
of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle
on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's
side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give
herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in
marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers
- We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their
wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be
free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might has
malice.
No. The poting is written by a person who has read Guran & Hadiths in his
own language rather than in arabic and being a freethinker wants to inform
others of the absurdities of Guran & Hadiths.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody to mary him.
True. He just took them away from others.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's
father for Ayesha.
I did not know AYESHA's father was a woman.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad (SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to
his house till she was mature and on the insistence of her father.
So you consider a 9 year old mature enough to be deflowered by a horny old
man!!
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will
not write it here.
Oh, please do enlighten us about it. We might learn something after all.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent
for marriage but Allah changed that
True. My header in this post says exactly the same thing. Allah was always
there to help Moe's sexual desires. Just ask Mokhammet's adopted son who
had to give away his wife to Mokhammet. Not to mention all the slave girls
that Moe grabbed by force.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after Muhammad
(SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom. Still in NIKKAH, girl
is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to mary him in nikkah.
Oh. That is sooooooo sad!!!!!
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were destitute. helpless and old
including HAFZA, daughter of OMER. Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU
BAKER rejected her. Read history. Muhammad (SAWW) wanted to help them
and Allah ordered him to do so.
Not most, but a few. Mokhammed just needed some babysitters to cook and
take care of his child bride.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please get your facts straight.
Unfortunately most of the so called Hadiths coined by so called
muslims/muslim scholars about the sexuality of Muhammad (SAWW) are
fake- They did so just to cover their misdeeds.
In other words, "UNFORTUNATELY" just believe some hadiths that does not
offend us and throw out the rest.
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran. My post is
the verse of Guran and not the hadith.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Syed Manzoor H. Jaffery
Stamford, CT. 06905 USA
RBRK
7th. Level, Heaven 77777, Way out there

heehee
V S Rawat
2005-10-04 18:27:49 UTC
Permalink
RBRK wrote:

Dear RBRK! Please remove this Followup-To: poster from your
Xnews/5.04.25. It is irritating and needs extra work.
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were destitute. helpless
and old
Not most, but a few.
Mr Jaffery is right on this count. Other than Ayesha, all other
wives of Mo were widows or divorcees. Some were chronic widows
(many-time widows). Khadija was also twice-widowed. In some
case, it was Mo who got the lady divorced from her previous
husband (Zaid's wife Zaynab). In some cased, Mo himself killed
the previous husband and family members of the lady.
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Syed Manzoor H. Jaffery
Stamford, CT. 06905 USA
RBRK
7th. Level, Heaven 77777, Way out there
heehee
hee hee. Do you see 72 virgins and pearly boys up there? :-8)
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-04 22:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by V S Rawat
Dear RBRK! Please remove this Followup-To: poster from your
Xnews/5.04.25. It is irritating and needs extra work.
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were destitute. helpless
and old
Not most, but a few.
Mr Jaffery is right on this count. Other than Ayesha, all other
wives of Mo were widows or divorcees. Some were chronic widows
(many-time widows). Khadija was also twice-widowed. In some
case, it was Mo who got the lady divorced from her previous
husband (Zaid's wife Zaynab).
And why would he do that when he himself married Zainab to Zaid in the
first place?
Post by V S Rawat
In some cased, Mo himself killed
the previous husband and family members of the lady.
And what is your proof for this?
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-05 17:58:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:13:11 +0100, RBRK <***@Irani.com> wrote:

[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-05 18:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-05 18:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
What is the truth?
That only in your sick mind all Muslims must believe on Hadiths as if they
were the words of God?
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-05 19:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Damn. This is all Jewish conspiracy! heehee
€€R.L.Measures
2005-10-06 12:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
What is the truth?
That only in your sick mind all Muslims must believe on Hadiths as if they
were the words of God?
€€ Since AD1545, Roman Catholics have believed in Roman church Traditions
as if they were the words of God.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
RBRK
2005-10-06 12:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by €€R.L.Measures
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
What is the truth?
That only in your sick mind all Muslims must believe on Hadiths as if
they were the words of God?
€€ Since AD1545, Roman Catholics have believed in Roman church
Traditions as if they were the words of God.
Duh. We are talking Izlam here!
You need to go to catholic caves and discuss your problems with them
experts.
m***@hotmail.com
2005-10-06 15:27:59 UTC
Permalink
First of all Our only book is QURAN which is the only UN EDITTED
SCRIPTURE. Torah and Injeel ( New testament) both are edited books.
(torah has 5 editions and Injeel has more than 50 editions). Edited
means corrected by man. Rest of the Torah and INJEEL are HADITHS (
sayings of prophets). We (Muslims) do not believe in HADITHS which
contradict Quran.
Modern day Torah and Injeel are full of Hadiths which contradict
Original Torah and Injeel. There is only ONE GOD- He is JUST GOD. He
sent only ONE message.
V S Rawat
2005-10-06 18:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all Our only book is QURAN which is the only UN
EDITTED SCRIPTURE. Torah and Injeel ( New testament) both are
edited books. (torah has 5 editions and Injeel has more than
50 editions). Edited means corrected by man. Rest of the Torah
and INJEEL are HADITHS ( sayings of prophets). We (Muslims) do
not believe in HADITHS which contradict Quran.
Modern day Torah and Injeel are full of Hadiths which
contradict Original Torah and Injeel. There is only ONE GOD-
He is JUST GOD. He sent only ONE message.
Actually, your above message itself acknowledges that Allah sent
three messages:
1. Torah
2. Injeel
3. Quran

And there are two more. Zuboor and Suhoof.

So, what is the fun in contradicting yourself and saying that He
sent only ONE message?
RBRK
2005-10-06 19:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all Our only book is QURAN which is the only UN EDITTED
SCRIPTURE. Torah and Injeel ( New testament) both are edited books.
(torah has 5 editions and Injeel has more than 50 editions). Edited
means corrected by man. Rest of the Torah and INJEEL are HADITHS (
sayings of prophets). We (Muslims) do not believe in HADITHS which
contradict Quran.
Modern day Torah and Injeel are full of Hadiths which contradict
Original Torah and Injeel. There is only ONE GOD- He is JUST GOD. He
sent only ONE message.
See my today's post
V S Rawat
2005-10-06 16:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:13:11 +0100, RBRK
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL
guran.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
What is the truth?
That only in your sick mind all Muslims must believe on
Hadiths as if they were the words of God?
€€ Since AD1545, Roman Catholics have believed in Roman
church Traditions as if they were the words of God.
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.

But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.

That is the difference.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-06 23:42:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:13:00 +0100, V S Rawat <***@Invalid.none> wrote:

[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities, as it
has more than often happened in the past on more than some more radical
Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of centuries ago, anyone
who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam, and who refused to repent
and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the stake for expiation of their sins,
as a gentle act of mercy from good and devoted Catholics. Even when they
adopted Catholicism they and their descendants were persecuted throught
generations for their Jewish or Muslim "impure" blood.
Some radical Catholic communities, such as the infamous KKK, continue to
practice such and other similar things even today.

It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with fanatic
and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for their selfish and
evil purposes.

As historical proof that Islam doesn't obligatorely force it's views on
everyone, I'll cite one between scores of other examples: When Catholic
warriors laid siege to Muslim ruled Lisbon and finally conquered the city,
they found a Mozarab Catholic community living there among Muslims, with
their churches and a Bishop. The Bishop, who was a venerable ancient of 84
years at the time, was assassinated with his throat cut. Not by Muslims as
you may presume, but by the German Count who was part of the Catholic
expedition.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-06 23:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities,
as it has more than often happened in the past on more than some more
radical Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of centuries
ago, anyone who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam, and who
refused to repent and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the stake for
expiation of their sins, as a gentle act of mercy from good and
devoted Catholics. Even when they adopted Catholicism they and their
descendants were persecuted throught generations for their Jewish or
Muslim "impure" blood. Some radical Catholic communities, such as the
infamous KKK, continue to practice such and other similar things even
today.
It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with
fanatic and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for their
selfish and evil purposes.
Sorry. But Mohammed was the only "prophet" to use Allah for his own
selfish & evil purposes.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 01:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities,
as it has more than often happened in the past on more than some more
radical Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of centuries
ago, anyone who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam, and who
refused to repent and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the stake for
expiation of their sins, as a gentle act of mercy from good and
devoted Catholics. Even when they adopted Catholicism they and their
descendants were persecuted throught generations for their Jewish or
Muslim "impure" blood. Some radical Catholic communities, such as the
infamous KKK, continue to practice such and other similar things even
today.
It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with
fanatic and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for their
selfish and evil purposes.
Sorry. But Mohammed was the only "prophet" to use Allah for his own
selfish & evil purposes.
So says you.
But we already know you don't have the least ideia what you are talking
about, nor do you care.
Almost all you do in your sorry Usenet life is to fight Islam with insults
and plain lies, when you are not calling for the destruction by war of
your(?) own country, Iran, and the genocide or expulsion of the majority
of its people, for your "own selfish & evil purposes".

You are a sorry excuse for an human being, RaBiRiKu, and the only
fortunate thing about your presence here in Usenet is that, on rare
occasions, it provides the context for useful discussions about Islam,
which often serve to dispel the many myths circulating abroad about this
Religion.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-08 00:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities,
as it has more than often happened in the past on more than some
more radical Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of
centuries ago, anyone who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam,
and who refused to repent and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the
stake for expiation of their sins, as a gentle act of mercy from
good and devoted Catholics. Even when they adopted Catholicism they
and their descendants were persecuted throught generations for
their Jewish or Muslim "impure" blood. Some radical Catholic
communities, such as the infamous KKK, continue to practice such
and other similar things even today.
It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with
fanatic and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for
their selfish and evil purposes.
Sorry. But Mohammed was the only "prophet" to use Allah for his own
selfish & evil purposes.
So says you.
But we already know you don't have the least ideia what you are
talking about, nor do you care.
Almost all you do in your sorry Usenet life is to fight Islam with
insults and plain lies, when you are not calling for the destruction
by war of your(?) own country, Iran, and the genocide or expulsion of
the majority of its people, for your "own selfish & evil purposes".
Your problem is something else Amigo. You finally exposed yourself.
Your ass have been chewed many times by me in Iranian newsgroup that you
want to take a revenge by bullshitting yourself around Islam that you
have no expertise in. I suggest you go read Hadiths & Guran fully and
then start arguing.

BTW,
You are not an Iranian. Thus your opinion, about me isn't even worth
responding.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
You are a sorry excuse for an human being, RaBiRiKu, and the only
fortunate thing about your presence here in Usenet is that, on rare
occasions, it provides the context for useful discussions about Islam,
which often serve to dispel the many myths circulating abroad about
this Religion.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 01:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities,
as it has more than often happened in the past on more than some
more radical Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of
centuries ago, anyone who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam,
and who refused to repent and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the
stake for expiation of their sins, as a gentle act of mercy from
good and devoted Catholics. Even when they adopted Catholicism they
and their descendants were persecuted throught generations for
their Jewish or Muslim "impure" blood. Some radical Catholic
communities, such as the infamous KKK, continue to practice such
and other similar things even today.
It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with
fanatic and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for
their selfish and evil purposes.
Sorry. But Mohammed was the only "prophet" to use Allah for his own
selfish & evil purposes.
So says you.
But we already know you don't have the least ideia what you are
talking about, nor do you care.
Almost all you do in your sorry Usenet life is to fight Islam with
insults and plain lies, when you are not calling for the destruction
by war of your(?) own country, Iran, and the genocide or expulsion of
the majority of its people, for your "own selfish & evil purposes".
Your problem is something else Amigo. You finally exposed yourself.
Your ass have been chewed many times by me in Iranian newsgroup that you
want to take a revenge by bullshitting yourself around Islam that you
have no expertise in.
Wrong conclusion, RaBiRiKu jaan. We've not talked much on the Iranian
newsgroup, as far as I can recall. I'm not reading you in the Islam
newsgroups either, as you seem to presume. I'm reading you in
soc.culture.palestine on this specific thread.

You are correct in saying that I'm not an expert on Islam, nor do I pose
as such. Nevertheless, one does not need to be an Imam to classify most of
your posts on Islam as the garbage they are. When I refuted you, I
presented an argument. You, on the other hand, apart form the customary
baseless insults, had not much to say besides recognizing you know
virtually nothing on the subject, and are just parroting the opinions of
somebody else for your own purposes. Furthermore, you recognized that you
don't want to engage on serious discussion on "Mullah" subjects, for not
having an interest on them.

It is clear that your purpose here is not discuss and argue, but personal
attack and insult. You are worthless as an opponent, though you may have
the same use as the jungle monkey whose behaviour the scientists are
monitoring, for a purpuse much greater than the monkey itself.
Post by RBRK
I suggest you go read Hadiths & Guran fully and
then start arguing.
BTW,
You are not an Iranian. Thus your opinion, about me isn't even worth
responding.
Nobody asked you such a thing, though it is not even clear if you are an
Iranian at all. It is hard to believe that an Iranian worth of that name
would be calling for the destruction of his own country and own people by
war, but I guess that I have to get used to the fact that such despicable
scum do exist, indeed.
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
You are a sorry excuse for an human being, RaBiRiKu, and the only
fortunate thing about your presence here in Usenet is that, on rare
occasions, it provides the context for useful discussions about Islam,
which often serve to dispel the many myths circulating abroad about
this Religion.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2005-10-11 06:49:06 UTC
Permalink
it takes a pathetic dimwitted jack ass like you to make a statement as
asinine and outright stupid as you did, then again, your genetic
composition is not your fault. What kind of a moron tries to argue
about the lack of validity on another poster's views on Islam when he
admits that he knows NOTHING about Islam?
Answer, a self-hating left wing socialist douche bag who thinks Islam
is a religion of peace and safely argues about Marxism, islam and the
"decadent" capitalist west in some coffee shop along with a bunch of
misinformed parasitic left wing liberal idiots turned "communist" to
piss of their wealthy parents.
You fit the perfect profile for that. Try to educate yourself on Islam
you moron before refuting anything.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by V S Rawat
It is well known that Christianity does not force its
subscription on people. At least, not now. So, anyone if free to
believe anything.
But, Islam forces its views as Words of Allah. And they have a
sword in their hands when they declare it.
That is the difference.
Such fanaticism may happen on some more radical Islamic communities,
as it has more than often happened in the past on more than some
more radical Catholic communities. Little more than a couple of
centuries ago, anyone who was caught practicising Judaism or Islam,
and who refused to repent and adopt Catholicism, was burnt at the
stake for expiation of their sins, as a gentle act of mercy from
good and devoted Catholics. Even when they adopted Catholicism they
and their descendants were persecuted throught generations for
their Jewish or Muslim "impure" blood. Some radical Catholic
communities, such as the infamous KKK, continue to practice such
and other similar things even today.
It has nothing to do with Mohammed or Jesus, it has all to do with
fanatic and wicked people who misinterpret the words of God for
their selfish and evil purposes.
Sorry. But Mohammed was the only "prophet" to use Allah for his own
selfish & evil purposes.
So says you.
But we already know you don't have the least ideia what you are
talking about, nor do you care.
Almost all you do in your sorry Usenet life is to fight Islam with
insults and plain lies, when you are not calling for the destruction
by war of your(?) own country, Iran, and the genocide or expulsion of
the majority of its people, for your "own selfish & evil purposes".
Your problem is something else Amigo. You finally exposed yourself.
Your ass have been chewed many times by me in Iranian newsgroup that you
want to take a revenge by bullshitting yourself around Islam that you
have no expertise in.
Wrong conclusion, RaBiRiKu jaan. We've not talked much on the Iranian
newsgroup, as far as I can recall. I'm not reading you in the Islam
newsgroups either, as you seem to presume. I'm reading you in
soc.culture.palestine on this specific thread.
You are correct in saying that I'm not an expert on Islam, nor do I pose
as such. Nevertheless, one does not need to be an Imam to classify most of
your posts on Islam as the garbage they are. When I refuted you, I
presented an argument. You, on the other hand, apart form the customary
baseless insults, had not much to say besides recognizing you know
virtually nothing on the subject, and are just parroting the opinions of
somebody else for your own purposes. Furthermore, you recognized that you
don't want to engage on serious discussion on "Mullah" subjects, for not
having an interest on them.
It is clear that your purpose here is not discuss and argue, but personal
attack and insult. You are worthless as an opponent, though you may have
the same use as the jungle monkey whose behaviour the scientists are
monitoring, for a purpuse much greater than the monkey itself.
Post by RBRK
I suggest you go read Hadiths & Guran fully and
then start arguing.
BTW,
You are not an Iranian. Thus your opinion, about me isn't even worth
responding.
Nobody asked you such a thing, though it is not even clear if you are an
Iranian at all. It is hard to believe that an Iranian worth of that name
would be calling for the destruction of his own country and own people by
war, but I guess that I have to get used to the fact that such despicable
scum do exist, indeed.
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
You are a sorry excuse for an human being, RaBiRiKu, and the only
fortunate thing about your presence here in Usenet is that, on rare
occasions, it provides the context for useful discussions about Islam,
which often serve to dispel the many myths circulating abroad about
this Religion.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 20:47:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:49:06 +0100, SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

(insults snipped)
(..) What kind (..) tries to argue
about the lack of validity on another poster's views on Islam when he
admits that he knows NOTHING about Islam?
Where have I admited such a thing?
I certainly am no expert on Islam, but I'm not a total ignoramus as you
and your ilk have repeatedly shown to be, with the endless nonsense about
Islam you use to flood SCI and other newsgroups.
In any case, if you have any objection to my remarks, please expose it in
a civilized and intelligent manner, and I'll be utterly glad to discuss
it. On the other hand, throwing rows of the same, overused, boring
insults, which seem to be all you are able to say on this matter, will get
you nothing but contempt and pityness.

(more insults deleted)
--
Believing in God throught Religion is like touring Venice in an organized
excursion. There are some advantages, of course, but you'll never see the
best of it.
I_take_a_giant_shit_on_islam
2005-10-12 04:16:51 UTC
Permalink
go get an education you freeloading socialist jerk off. Let's see if
you can even locate Iran on the map you ignorant jerk off

Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-06 23:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
The truth hurts. Doesn't it?
Enjoy. ;-)
What is the truth?
That only in your sick mind all Muslims must believe on Hadiths as if they
were the words of God?
€€ Since AD1545, Roman Catholics have believed in Roman church
Traditions
as if they were the words of God.
It doesn't make them more truer, does it?

In any case, if the Catholic church has chose to include some of those
traditions on their official doctrine, it is Catholic's problem, not
Muslim's.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
mash_ghasem
2005-10-07 02:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
If a muslim say suching thing and question the crap called
Islam then you might have a religion fit for human beings.
Are you a muslim? You do sound muslim though your name
isn't? Are you a muslim and if so why you keep refering to
muslims as "they"? Are you ashamed to be a muslim? If you
are that would be understandable. Are you a muslim pig?
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 00:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mash_ghasem
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Listen, All muzlims MUST believe in all hadiths and ALL guran.
Funny how only non-Muslims say such a thing.
What a bunch of experts on Islam they must be...
If a muslim say suching thing
If a Muslim say suching thing as that Hadiths are the unquestionable word
of God, then he certainly isn't a good Muslim.
Post by mash_ghasem
and question the crap called
Islam then you might have a religion fit for human beings.
Are you a muslim? You do sound muslim though your name
isn't? Are you a muslim and if so why you keep refering to
muslims as "they"? Are you ashamed to be a muslim? If you
are that would be understandable.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not have a Religion, nor am I interested
in having one.
Nevertheless, I do find an interest in Islam, and I greatly respect it.
Clarified?
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
V S Rawat
2005-10-04 18:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might
has malice.
Let's find out who is ignorant and who has malice.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody
to mary him.
Oh. you mean sitting on his knees holding the hand of the girl,
and putting the ring in the finger?

Well. I too miss that about Mohammed.

btw, what is this SAWW? it is SAWS=Sallaaho-alaihi-va-sallam.
You are not a muslim.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including
KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's father for Ayesha.
haa, haa, haa, You Madarasa Trained Illiterate!

Mohammed never took any other wife during the life time of
Khadija.

KHADIJA WAS LONG DEAD when Mohammed got married to Ayesha.

Khadija had died in 619. Thenafter Mo had married one Sawada,
daughter of Zama who was a widow aged 50. Thenafter Mo had
married Ayesha. So, as per you, the ghost of Khadija had come to
ask Mo to marry Ayesha?

The real story unfolds like this: Mo had married Khadija for her
money to come out of his poverty. Khadija gave Mo four daughters
and three sons, but all sons had died. Mo was without a son who
could have carried his legacy. Mo was reaching 50 so leaving his
productive years, so he wanted a quick son, and he thought that
a youthful virgin would give him sons.

So he eyed Ayesha. Ayesha's father Abu Bakr who was Mo's
childhood friend and just three years younger to Mo was not
amused. He had refused. Then Mo got a revelation and told
everybody that Allah had shown him (MO) a veiled lady and told
him that she is your wife, and when Mo had removed the veil of
the lady in his dream, he had seen the face of Ayesha behind the
veil.

Now, who was Abu Bakr to counter the decree of Allah. The
marriage indeed took place.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad
(SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to his house till she was mature
and on the insistence of her father.
The father was not in a position to disallow a husband (MO) to
take his duly wed wife (Ayesha) and deflower.

In any case, everybody had got uprooted and migrated to Yathrib
in 622. Abu Bakr, Ayesha and everybody at the mercy of Mo who
had a strong hold in Yathrib.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of
offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will not write it
here.
I have a hunch that you still searching to find such a purpose,
and you would sure post that here as soon as you find one.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that
Allah was sure quite accomodating about his beloved prophet. He
had already given a revelation just-in-time to get Mo married to
Ayesha. And, then Allah promptly came up with another
just-in-time revelation to allow Mo's marriage with Zaynab,
daughter of Jahsh, the forcedly divorced wife of Mo's adapted
slave son Zaid.

In fact, it was Ayesha ra herself who had acknowledge the
accomodating nature of Allah in case of Mo, when she said to Mo
"Oh, you lord sure rushes to help you."
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after
Muhammad (SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom.
Oh. So, the current muslims are breaking the sunnats of Mo. They
all will sure go to hell. Serves them right.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Still
in NIKKAH, girl is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to
mary him in nikkah.
"girl asks boy to mary him" in niqaah?

I am utterly confused? Which planet you are from?

Where had you hidden your spacecraft when you landed on Earth.

Beware of one Mr Steven Spielberg. He might make a film on you.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were
destitute. helpless
A six year old was sure helpless.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
and old including HAFZA, daughter of OMER.
Omar became second Caliph.

Ayesha's father Abu Bakr became first Caliph.

It paid well to get your relatives married to Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU BAKER rejected her.
Interesting to know that all three friends (MO, Abu Bakar, Omar)
were eyeing one another's daughters.

Could you quote hadeeths which describe why Abu Bakr denied to
marry Umar's Daughter, Hafshah.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Read
history.
Yeah, it is quite juicey in 620-632 AD.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Muhammad (SAWW) wanted to help them and Allah ordered
him to do so. Please get your facts straight. Unfortunately
most of the so called Hadiths coined by so called
muslims/muslim scholars about the sexuality of Muhammad (SAWW)
are fake-
And why are these guarded so well for 1400 years?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They did so just to cover their misdeeds.
Maybe, they were the ones who dared to uncover the misdeeds of
Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Syed Manzoor H. Jaffery Stamford, CT. 06905 USA
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-04 22:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might
has malice.
Let's find out who is ignorant and who has malice.
Ok let's see.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody
to mary him.
Oh. you mean sitting on his knees holding the hand of the girl,
and putting the ring in the finger?
Well. I too miss that about Mohammed.
btw, what is this SAWW? it is SAWS=Sallaaho-alaihi-va-sallam.
You are not a muslim.
Sallala ho Alaihi Waalehi Wassalam.
We know that you are definitely not a Muslim.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including
KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's father for Ayesha.
haa, haa, haa, You Madarasa Trained Illiterate!
And who are you... a mandir trained illiterate hindu ;)
Post by V S Rawat
Mohammed never took any other wife during the life time of
Khadija.
KHADIJA WAS LONG DEAD when Mohammed got married to Ayesha.
Khadija had died in 619. Thenafter Mo had married one Sawada,
daughter of Zama who was a widow aged 50. Thenafter Mo had
married Ayesha. So, as per you, the ghost of Khadija had come to
ask Mo to marry Ayesha?
The real story unfolds like this: Mo had married Khadija for her
money to come out of his poverty.
Oh yea... and what are you basing your opinion on?
Post by V S Rawat
Khadija gave Mo four daughters
and three sons, but all sons had died. Mo was without a son who
could have carried his legacy. Mo was reaching 50 so leaving his
productive years, so he wanted a quick son, and he thought that
a youthful virgin would give him sons.
Your own opinions.
Post by V S Rawat
So he eyed Ayesha. Ayesha's father Abu Bakr who was Mo's
childhood friend and just three years younger to Mo was not
amused. He had refused.
Get your facts right if you want to talk about the subject. He DID NOT
refuse, he had objection that him and Muhammad (pbuh) were spoken
brothers. He was corrected that they were brothers in Islam but NOT
blood brothers.
Post by V S Rawat
Then Mo got a revelation and told
everybody that Allah had shown him (MO) a veiled lady and told
him that she is your wife, and when Mo had removed the veil of
the lady in his dream, he had seen the face of Ayesha behind the
veil.
Actually it was his aunt Khawla bint Hakim who proposed Aisha to
Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
Now, who was Abu Bakr to counter the decree of Allah. The
marriage indeed took place.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad
(SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to his house till she was mature
and on the insistence of her father.
The father was not in a position to disallow a husband (MO) to
take his duly wed wife (Ayesha) and deflower.
In any case, everybody had got uprooted and migrated to Yathrib
in 622. Abu Bakr, Ayesha and everybody at the mercy of Mo who
had a strong hold in Yathrib.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of
offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will not write it
here.
I have a hunch that you still searching to find such a purpose,
and you would sure post that here as soon as you find one.
Aisha was the youngest and most intellectually gifted of all the
Prophet's wives. She lived 40 years after his death. She was well
versed in Women's issues and Islamic fiqh. Her contributions to the
Muslims after Prophet's death are invaluable. There are numerous
hadiths attributed to her plus all the Caliphs took her advise on lots
of issues of the day.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that
Allah was sure quite accomodating about his beloved prophet. He
had already given a revelation just-in-time to get Mo married to
Ayesha. And, then Allah promptly came up with another
just-in-time revelation to allow Mo's marriage with Zaynab,
daughter of Jahsh, the forcedly divorced wife of Mo's adapted
slave son Zaid.
Once again your own opinions are injected. Why would Prophet forcefully
get Zainab divorced from Zaid when he was the one who arranged the
marriage in the first place? If he wanted to marry Zainab in the first
place, he could have done that easily since her own family was in favor
of her marriage to Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
In fact, it was Ayesha ra herself who had acknowledge the
accomodating nature of Allah in case of Mo, when she said to Mo
"Oh, you lord sure rushes to help you."
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after
Muhammad (SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom.
Oh. So, the current muslims are breaking the sunnats of Mo. They
all will sure go to hell. Serves them right.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Still
in NIKKAH, girl is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to
mary him in nikkah.
"girl asks boy to mary him" in niqaah?
I am utterly confused? Which planet you are from?
Where had you hidden your spacecraft when you landed on Earth.
Beware of one Mr Steven Spielberg. He might make a film on you.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were
destitute. helpless
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
and old including HAFZA, daughter of OMER.
Omar became second Caliph.
Ayesha's father Abu Bakr became first Caliph.
It paid well to get your relatives married to Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU BAKER rejected her.
Interesting to know that all three friends (MO, Abu Bakar, Omar)
were eyeing one another's daughters.
Marriage was and is still considered NOT only between man and woman but
also between two families to strengthen the bonds. This is still quite
common in many cultures.
Post by V S Rawat
Could you quote hadeeths which describe why Abu Bakr denied to
marry Umar's Daughter, Hafshah.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Read
history.
Yeah, it is quite juicey in 620-632 AD.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Muhammad (SAWW) wanted to help them and Allah ordered
him to do so. Please get your facts straight. Unfortunately
most of the so called Hadiths coined by so called
muslims/muslim scholars about the sexuality of Muhammad (SAWW)
are fake-
And why are these guarded so well for 1400 years?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They did so just to cover their misdeeds.
Maybe, they were the ones who dared to uncover the misdeeds of
Mo.
It is well known fact that there were lot's of corrupt and weak hadiths
that were circulated by people who were either ignorant of the facts or
did that on purpose. Some of these hadiths were invented some 200 years
after Prophet's death. Some of these hadiths even crept into Sahih
books. The ONLY correct hadith is the one that DOES NOT contradict the
Quran and has sound chain of narrators.
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-04 22:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might
has malice.
Let's find out who is ignorant and who has malice.
Ok let's see.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody
to mary him.
Oh. you mean sitting on his knees holding the hand of the girl,
and putting the ring in the finger?
Well. I too miss that about Mohammed.
btw, what is this SAWW? it is SAWS=Sallaaho-alaihi-va-sallam.
You are not a muslim.
Sallala ho Alaihi Waalehi Wassalam.
We know that you are definitely not a Muslim.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including
KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's father for Ayesha.
haa, haa, haa, You Madarasa Trained Illiterate!
And who are you... a mandir trained illiterate hindu ;)
Post by V S Rawat
Mohammed never took any other wife during the life time of
Khadija.
KHADIJA WAS LONG DEAD when Mohammed got married to Ayesha.
Khadija had died in 619. Thenafter Mo had married one Sawada,
daughter of Zama who was a widow aged 50. Thenafter Mo had
married Ayesha. So, as per you, the ghost of Khadija had come to
ask Mo to marry Ayesha?
The real story unfolds like this: Mo had married Khadija for her
money to come out of his poverty.
Oh yea... and what are you basing your opinion on?
Post by V S Rawat
Khadija gave Mo four daughters
and three sons, but all sons had died. Mo was without a son who
could have carried his legacy. Mo was reaching 50 so leaving his
productive years, so he wanted a quick son, and he thought that
a youthful virgin would give him sons.
Your own opinions.
Post by V S Rawat
So he eyed Ayesha. Ayesha's father Abu Bakr who was Mo's
childhood friend and just three years younger to Mo was not
amused. He had refused.
Get your facts right if you want to talk about the subject. He DID NOT
refuse, he had objection that him and Muhammad (pbuh) were spoken
brothers. He was corrected that they were brothers in Islam but NOT
blood brothers.
Post by V S Rawat
Then Mo got a revelation and told
everybody that Allah had shown him (MO) a veiled lady and told
him that she is your wife, and when Mo had removed the veil of
the lady in his dream, he had seen the face of Ayesha behind the
veil.
Actually it was his aunt Khawla bint Hakim who proposed Aisha to
Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
Now, who was Abu Bakr to counter the decree of Allah. The
marriage indeed took place.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad
(SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to his house till she was mature
and on the insistence of her father.
The father was not in a position to disallow a husband (MO) to
take his duly wed wife (Ayesha) and deflower.
In any case, everybody had got uprooted and migrated to Yathrib
in 622. Abu Bakr, Ayesha and everybody at the mercy of Mo who
had a strong hold in Yathrib.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of
offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will not write it
here.
I have a hunch that you still searching to find such a purpose,
and you would sure post that here as soon as you find one.
Aisha was the youngest and most intellectually gifted of all the
Prophet's wives. She lived 40 years after his death. She was well
versed in Women's issues and Islamic fiqh. Her contributions to the
Muslims after Prophet's death are invaluable. There are numerous
hadiths attributed to her plus all the Caliphs took her advise on lots
of issues of the day.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that
Allah was sure quite accomodating about his beloved prophet. He
had already given a revelation just-in-time to get Mo married to
Ayesha. And, then Allah promptly came up with another
just-in-time revelation to allow Mo's marriage with Zaynab,
daughter of Jahsh, the forcedly divorced wife of Mo's adapted
slave son Zaid.
Once again your own opinions are injected. Why would Prophet forcefully
get Zainab divorced from Zaid when he was the one who arranged the
marriage in the first place? If he wanted to marry Zainab in the first
place, he could have done that easily since her own family was in favor
of her marriage to Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
In fact, it was Ayesha ra herself who had acknowledge the
accomodating nature of Allah in case of Mo, when she said to Mo
"Oh, you lord sure rushes to help you."
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after
Muhammad (SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom.
Oh. So, the current muslims are breaking the sunnats of Mo. They
all will sure go to hell. Serves them right.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Still
in NIKKAH, girl is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to
mary him in nikkah.
"girl asks boy to mary him" in niqaah?
I am utterly confused? Which planet you are from?
Where had you hidden your spacecraft when you landed on Earth.
Beware of one Mr Steven Spielberg. He might make a film on you.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were
destitute. helpless
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
and old including HAFZA, daughter of OMER.
Omar became second Caliph.
Ayesha's father Abu Bakr became first Caliph.
It paid well to get your relatives married to Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU BAKER rejected her.
Interesting to know that all three friends (MO, Abu Bakar, Omar)
were eyeing one another's daughters.
Marriage was and is still considered NOT only between man and woman but
also between two families to strengthen the bonds. This is still quite
common in many cultures.
How convenient if you can induce family by bribe and bullying (carrot
and stick) to allow legal rape of nine year girl by 54yr old sexual
deviant, who is self-proclaimed prophet and who claims to have backing
of the almighty Allah.
Execellent!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
Could you quote hadeeths which describe why Abu Bakr denied to
marry Umar's Daughter, Hafshah.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Read
history.
Yeah, it is quite juicey in 620-632 AD.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Muhammad (SAWW) wanted to help them and Allah ordered
him to do so. Please get your facts straight. Unfortunately
most of the so called Hadiths coined by so called
muslims/muslim scholars about the sexuality of Muhammad (SAWW)
are fake-
And why are these guarded so well for 1400 years?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They did so just to cover their misdeeds.
Maybe, they were the ones who dared to uncover the misdeeds of
Mo.
It is well known fact that there were lot's of corrupt and weak hadiths
that were circulated by people who were either ignorant of the facts or
did that on purpose. Some of these hadiths were invented some 200 years
after Prophet's death. Some of these hadiths even crept into Sahih
books. The ONLY correct hadith is the one that DOES NOT contradict the
Quran and has sound chain of narrators.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-04 23:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might
has malice.
Let's find out who is ignorant and who has malice.
Ok let's see.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody
to mary him.
Oh. you mean sitting on his knees holding the hand of the girl,
and putting the ring in the finger?
Well. I too miss that about Mohammed.
btw, what is this SAWW? it is SAWS=Sallaaho-alaihi-va-sallam.
You are not a muslim.
Sallala ho Alaihi Waalehi Wassalam.
We know that you are definitely not a Muslim.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including
KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's father for Ayesha.
haa, haa, haa, You Madarasa Trained Illiterate!
And who are you... a mandir trained illiterate hindu ;)
Post by V S Rawat
Mohammed never took any other wife during the life time of
Khadija.
KHADIJA WAS LONG DEAD when Mohammed got married to Ayesha.
Khadija had died in 619. Thenafter Mo had married one Sawada,
daughter of Zama who was a widow aged 50. Thenafter Mo had
married Ayesha. So, as per you, the ghost of Khadija had come to
ask Mo to marry Ayesha?
The real story unfolds like this: Mo had married Khadija for her
money to come out of his poverty.
Oh yea... and what are you basing your opinion on?
Post by V S Rawat
Khadija gave Mo four daughters
and three sons, but all sons had died. Mo was without a son who
could have carried his legacy. Mo was reaching 50 so leaving his
productive years, so he wanted a quick son, and he thought that
a youthful virgin would give him sons.
Your own opinions.
Post by V S Rawat
So he eyed Ayesha. Ayesha's father Abu Bakr who was Mo's
childhood friend and just three years younger to Mo was not
amused. He had refused.
Get your facts right if you want to talk about the subject. He DID NOT
refuse, he had objection that him and Muhammad (pbuh) were spoken
brothers. He was corrected that they were brothers in Islam but NOT
blood brothers.
Post by V S Rawat
Then Mo got a revelation and told
everybody that Allah had shown him (MO) a veiled lady and told
him that she is your wife, and when Mo had removed the veil of
the lady in his dream, he had seen the face of Ayesha behind the
veil.
Actually it was his aunt Khawla bint Hakim who proposed Aisha to
Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
Now, who was Abu Bakr to counter the decree of Allah. The
marriage indeed took place.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad
(SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to his house till she was mature
and on the insistence of her father.
The father was not in a position to disallow a husband (MO) to
take his duly wed wife (Ayesha) and deflower.
In any case, everybody had got uprooted and migrated to Yathrib
in 622. Abu Bakr, Ayesha and everybody at the mercy of Mo who
had a strong hold in Yathrib.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of
offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will not write it
here.
I have a hunch that you still searching to find such a purpose,
and you would sure post that here as soon as you find one.
Aisha was the youngest and most intellectually gifted of all the
Prophet's wives. She lived 40 years after his death. She was well
versed in Women's issues and Islamic fiqh. Her contributions to the
Muslims after Prophet's death are invaluable. There are numerous
hadiths attributed to her plus all the Caliphs took her advise on lots
of issues of the day.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that
Allah was sure quite accomodating about his beloved prophet. He
had already given a revelation just-in-time to get Mo married to
Ayesha. And, then Allah promptly came up with another
just-in-time revelation to allow Mo's marriage with Zaynab,
daughter of Jahsh, the forcedly divorced wife of Mo's adapted
slave son Zaid.
Once again your own opinions are injected. Why would Prophet forcefully
get Zainab divorced from Zaid when he was the one who arranged the
marriage in the first place? If he wanted to marry Zainab in the first
place, he could have done that easily since her own family was in favor
of her marriage to Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
In fact, it was Ayesha ra herself who had acknowledge the
accomodating nature of Allah in case of Mo, when she said to Mo
"Oh, you lord sure rushes to help you."
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after
Muhammad (SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom.
Oh. So, the current muslims are breaking the sunnats of Mo. They
all will sure go to hell. Serves them right.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Still
in NIKKAH, girl is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to
mary him in nikkah.
"girl asks boy to mary him" in niqaah?
I am utterly confused? Which planet you are from?
Where had you hidden your spacecraft when you landed on Earth.
Beware of one Mr Steven Spielberg. He might make a film on you.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were
destitute. helpless
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
and old including HAFZA, daughter of OMER.
Omar became second Caliph.
Ayesha's father Abu Bakr became first Caliph.
It paid well to get your relatives married to Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU BAKER rejected her.
Interesting to know that all three friends (MO, Abu Bakar, Omar)
were eyeing one another's daughters.
Marriage was and is still considered NOT only between man and woman but
also between two families to strengthen the bonds. This is still quite
common in many cultures.
How convenient if you can induce family by bribe and bullying (carrot
and stick) to allow legal rape of nine year girl by 54yr old sexual
deviant, who is self-proclaimed prophet and who claims to have backing
of the almighty Allah.
Execellent!
If in your mind marriage is a legal rape then you MUST be a product of
rape.

Excellent.
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-04 23:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
This posting is written by ignorant person or he/she might
has malice.
Let's find out who is ignorant and who has malice.
Ok let's see.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
First of all, Muhammad (SAWW) never asked anybody
to mary him.
Oh. you mean sitting on his knees holding the hand of the girl,
and putting the ring in the finger?
Well. I too miss that about Mohammed.
btw, what is this SAWW? it is SAWS=Sallaaho-alaihi-va-sallam.
You are not a muslim.
Sallala ho Alaihi Waalehi Wassalam.
We know that you are definitely not a Muslim.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Women asked Muhammad (SAWW) to mary including
KHADIJA RA and AYESHA's father for Ayesha.
haa, haa, haa, You Madarasa Trained Illiterate!
And who are you... a mandir trained illiterate hindu ;)
Post by V S Rawat
Mohammed never took any other wife during the life time of
Khadija.
KHADIJA WAS LONG DEAD when Mohammed got married to Ayesha.
Khadija had died in 619. Thenafter Mo had married one Sawada,
daughter of Zama who was a widow aged 50. Thenafter Mo had
married Ayesha. So, as per you, the ghost of Khadija had come to
ask Mo to marry Ayesha?
The real story unfolds like this: Mo had married Khadija for her
money to come out of his poverty.
Oh yea... and what are you basing your opinion on?
Post by V S Rawat
Khadija gave Mo four daughters
and three sons, but all sons had died. Mo was without a son who
could have carried his legacy. Mo was reaching 50 so leaving his
productive years, so he wanted a quick son, and he thought that
a youthful virgin would give him sons.
Your own opinions.
Post by V S Rawat
So he eyed Ayesha. Ayesha's father Abu Bakr who was Mo's
childhood friend and just three years younger to Mo was not
amused. He had refused.
Get your facts right if you want to talk about the subject. He DID NOT
refuse, he had objection that him and Muhammad (pbuh) were spoken
brothers. He was corrected that they were brothers in Islam but NOT
blood brothers.
Post by V S Rawat
Then Mo got a revelation and told
everybody that Allah had shown him (MO) a veiled lady and told
him that she is your wife, and when Mo had removed the veil of
the lady in his dream, he had seen the face of Ayesha behind the
veil.
Actually it was his aunt Khawla bint Hakim who proposed Aisha to
Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
Now, who was Abu Bakr to counter the decree of Allah. The
marriage indeed took place.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even then Muhammad
(SAWW) did not bring AYESHA to his house till she was mature
and on the insistence of her father.
The father was not in a position to disallow a husband (MO) to
take his duly wed wife (Ayesha) and deflower.
In any case, everybody had got uprooted and migrated to Yathrib
in 622. Abu Bakr, Ayesha and everybody at the mercy of Mo who
had a strong hold in Yathrib.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I suspect the purpose of
offering Ayesha to Muhammad (SAWW) but I will not write it
here.
I have a hunch that you still searching to find such a purpose,
and you would sure post that here as soon as you find one.
Aisha was the youngest and most intellectually gifted of all the
Prophet's wives. She lived 40 years after his death. She was well
versed in Women's issues and Islamic fiqh. Her contributions to the
Muslims after Prophet's death are invaluable. There are numerous
hadiths attributed to her plus all the Caliphs took her advise on lots
of issues of the day.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
It was custom at that time to ask, girl's parent for
marriage but Allah changed that
Allah was sure quite accomodating about his beloved prophet. He
had already given a revelation just-in-time to get Mo married to
Ayesha. And, then Allah promptly came up with another
just-in-time revelation to allow Mo's marriage with Zaynab,
daughter of Jahsh, the forcedly divorced wife of Mo's adapted
slave son Zaid.
Once again your own opinions are injected. Why would Prophet forcefully
get Zainab divorced from Zaid when he was the one who arranged the
marriage in the first place? If he wanted to marry Zainab in the first
place, he could have done that easily since her own family was in favor
of her marriage to Prophet.
Post by V S Rawat
In fact, it was Ayesha ra herself who had acknowledge the
accomodating nature of Allah in case of Mo, when she said to Mo
"Oh, you lord sure rushes to help you."
Post by m***@hotmail.com
but unfortunately after
Muhammad (SAWW), Musilms went back to their old custom.
Oh. So, the current muslims are breaking the sunnats of Mo. They
all will sure go to hell. Serves them right.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Still
in NIKKAH, girl is asked first, otherwords girl asks boy to
mary him in nikkah.
"girl asks boy to mary him" in niqaah?
I am utterly confused? Which planet you are from?
Where had you hidden your spacecraft when you landed on Earth.
Beware of one Mr Steven Spielberg. He might make a film on you.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Most of the Muhammad(saww) wives were
destitute. helpless
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
Post by V S Rawat
Post by m***@hotmail.com
and old including HAFZA, daughter of OMER.
Omar became second Caliph.
Ayesha's father Abu Bakr became first Caliph.
It paid well to get your relatives married to Mo.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Even THE best friend of OMER, ABU BAKER rejected her.
Interesting to know that all three friends (MO, Abu Bakar, Omar)
were eyeing one another's daughters.
Marriage was and is still considered NOT only between man and woman but
also between two families to strengthen the bonds. This is still quite
common in many cultures.
How convenient if you can induce family by bribe and bullying (carrot
and stick) to allow legal rape of nine year girl by 54yr old sexual
deviant, who is self-proclaimed prophet and who claims to have backing
of the almighty Allah.
Execellent!
If in your mind marriage is a legal rape then you MUST be a product of
rape.
In that case your mamma must have been 6 when she married your 70yr old
dad, and since would have just fondled her she must have been raped by
his younger friends, as was common for Muslims mutltiple wives hidden
under black tent.

Now having repayed in you in the same coin, back to the issue which
Muslim when they cant answer alwasy try to avoid by throwing personal
insults.


Marraige is indeed legal rape if one of the partner is minor. Moron in
this case she was merely 6 and he 51! When he raped her she was 9yr,
too young to menarche. She was prepubertal 9yr old and he raped her!
Just because her father agreed and acted as pimp is immaterial.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Excellent.
rkusenet
2005-10-04 23:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
It is well known fact that there were lot's of corrupt and weak hadiths
that were circulated by people who were either ignorant of the facts or
did that on purpose. Some of these hadiths were invented some 200 years
after Prophet's death.
Ho ho ho.
So there is proof that Quran was indeed told to mofo mohd by GOD.
Can you show us the proof. Quran itself was written decades after
mofo mohd died. Why can't it be corrupt.

abey oye katue madarchod, go first learn logic.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-04 23:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
It's hilarious to see a hindu criticizing and insulting other
religions. What do you have to show for besides myths, millions of
imaginary gods and secretive scriptures full of all kind of sordid
details.... but that would be another thread.

Aisha's age has ONLY been listed in 2 or 3 hadiths attributed to one
person ONLY. People who have written articles disputing this fact have
done their research and the articles with links have been posted here
numerous times.
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
It is well known fact that there were lot's of corrupt and weak hadiths
that were circulated by people who were either ignorant of the facts or
did that on purpose. Some of these hadiths were invented some 200 years
after Prophet's death.
Ho ho ho.
So there is proof that Quran was indeed told to mofo mohd by GOD.
Can you show us the proof. Quran itself was written decades after
mofo mohd died. Why can't it be corrupt.
There are quite a number of proofs but I will list one provided by the
author... Allmighty Himself.

Quran 17:88
Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to
produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like
thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
Post by rkusenet
abey oye katue madarchod, go first learn logic.
I know name calling is part of hindu nature but it won't get you
anywhere. Don't get frustrated ;)
rkusenet
2005-10-05 00:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
There are quite a number of proofs but I will list one provided by the
author... Allmighty Himself.
ha ha ha. This surely beats Begging-the-Question logic. For want of
better epithet, we shall call it mulla logic. I am asking proof to show
that Quran was indeed word of GOD to mofo mohd and all I get
is that GOD himself has acknowledged it. he he he. kya logic hai.

Mofo mohd said that he is messenger of GOD and GOD met him
via Gabriel. And that becomes proof enuf for 1.4 billion fools.


http://www.submission.org/challenge.html

yeah what about this site. to me it appears to be as pathetic as
www.faithfreedom.org.
No credibility. any fool can start a web site like this, just like ali sina
started www.faithfreedom.org
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-05 00:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
There are quite a number of proofs but I will list one provided by the
author... Allmighty Himself.
ha ha ha. This surely beats Begging-the-Question logic. For want of
better epithet, we shall call it mulla logic. I am asking proof to show
that Quran was indeed word of GOD to mofo mohd and all I get
is that GOD himself has acknowledged it. he he he. kya logic hai.
Mofo mohd said that he is messenger of GOD and GOD met him
via Gabriel. And that becomes proof enuf for 1.4 billion fools.
http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
yeah what about this site. to me it appears to be as pathetic as
www.faithfreedom.org.
No credibility. any fool can start a web site like this, just like ali sina
started www.faithfreedom.org
Don't get frustrated rkuseless, I know you are. It's a very simple
verse that even a pea brain like yourself should be able to understand.

Quran 17:88
Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to
produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like
thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
RBRK
2005-10-05 00:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
There are quite a number of proofs but I will list one provided by
the author... Allmighty Himself.
ha ha ha. This surely beats Begging-the-Question logic. For want of
better epithet, we shall call it mulla logic. I am asking proof to
show that Quran was indeed word of GOD to mofo mohd and all I get
is that GOD himself has acknowledged it. he he he. kya logic hai.
Mofo mohd said that he is messenger of GOD and GOD met him
via Gabriel. And that becomes proof enuf for 1.4 billion fools.
http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
yeah what about this site. to me it appears to be as pathetic as
www.faithfreedom.org.
No credibility. any fool can start a web site like this, just like
ali sina started www.faithfreedom.org
Don't get frustrated rkuseless, I know you are. It's a very simple
verse that even a pea brain like yourself should be able to
understand.
Quran 17:88
Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to
produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like
thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
Muhammad used to have a secretary by the name of Abdallah Ibn Saad who
used to take down the sayings of the Koran at his dictation. At one point
Muhammad was coming up with a divine verse & could not finish it.
Abdallah absent-mindedly completed it for him and was shocked when
Muhammad said "Yes that's it", since the Koran was supposed to be a
divine revelation from Allah himself & only Muhammad was supposed to be
privy to those words.
Abdallah immediately abjured Islam & fled to Mecca. During the conquest
of Mecca his name was on top of the list of people to be killed. However
his foster-brother Uthman pleaded for his life, at which the prophet kept
silent. After Uthman had gone, Muhammad shouted at his followers "By God
I kept silent all this time so that one of you may go upto that dog & cut
off his head!" The bewildered followers asked Muhammad why he had not
made a signal to them to do this. At this Muhammad gritted his teeth and
hissed "A Prophet does not kill by making mere signs"

READ, history by Tabari, the arabian historian
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-05 18:42:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:20:41 +0100, RBRK <***@Irani.com> wrote:

[..]
Post by RBRK
Muhammad used to have a secretary by the name of Abdallah Ibn Saad who
used to take down the sayings of the Koran at his dictation. At one point
Muhammad was coming up with a divine verse & could not finish it.
Abdallah absent-mindedly completed it for him and was shocked when
Muhammad said "Yes that's it", since the Koran was supposed to be a
divine revelation from Allah himself & only Muhammad was supposed to be
privy to those words.
Abdallah immediately abjured Islam & fled to Mecca. During the conquest
of Mecca his name was on top of the list of people to be killed. However
his foster-brother Uthman pleaded for his life, at which the prophet kept
silent. After Uthman had gone, Muhammad shouted at his followers "By God
I kept silent all this time so that one of you may go upto that dog & cut
off his head!" The bewildered followers asked Muhammad why he had not
made a signal to them to do this. At this Muhammad gritted his teeth and
hissed "A Prophet does not kill by making mere signs"
READ, history by Tabari, the arabian historian
Apparently Tabari was only relaying an undocumented and unverified account
by one Umar bin Saif, which appears to have been the primary source for
your little story.
Apparently, too, no such person as "Abdullah bin Saba" have ever existed
except on the heads of Umar bin Saif and other Uthman apologists or, more
recently, vermin like you who use these old and long overdue myths to
attempt to discredit Islam.
Read below.

<quote>
Uthman and "Abdullah bin Saba"

The khilafat of Uthman had saddled the Muslims with a crippled government,
and the host of economic, political and social dislocations that sprang
from it, were met by an uncertain and often contradictory response. The
dislocations eventually caused the death of the khalifa himself.

Many Sunni historians find it very difficult to admit that Uthman brought
destruction upon himself. They are desperately anxious to "explain" or to
rationalize why things went awry in his khilafat. But how? Their anxiety
led them to create a mysterious and a sinister character whom they called
"Abdullah bin Saba."

The creation of Abdullah bin Saba "solved" many of the problems of the
Sunni historians. He made transference of guilt possible for them.
According to his creators, he was a Jew from Yemen who had accepted Islam,
migrated to Medina, and then went around preaching false and heretical
doctrines, and spreading disaffection and hatred against Uthman. He was,
they claim, responsible for all the sorrows and misfortunes, and
eventually, for the death itself, of Uthman!

Abdullah bin Saba, it appears, suddenly became the most powerful figure in
the entire Dar-ul-Islam. After all, it was he who toppled a khalifa from
his throne, and threw the whole government of the Muslims into disarray.

What Abdullah bin Saba was doing, was high treason. Was anything easier
for Marwan to do than to capture him and kill him for his treason, if he
was in Medina? Or, was anything easier for a provincial governor or even
for a petty official than to seize him, and to snuff out his life, if he
was in one of the provinces? No. But for some mysterious reason, he
swaggered from town to town and from province to province, flaying the
khalifa, and no one ever touched him. He apparently lived a charmed
existence!

It is amazing that Uthman could banish such a high-ranking companion of
Muhammad Mustafa as Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari to Rabza (Abu Dharr died in
Rabza); he could beat up Ammar ibn Yasir into unconsciousness, and he
could break the ribs of Abdullah ibn Masood, both most distinguished
companions of Muhammad; yet he could give free rein to Amr bin Aas and
"Abdullah bin Saba" to rouse the Muslims against himself with their
stinging diatribes.

When Uthman was killed, "Abdullah bin Saba" probably figured that he had
accomplished his mission, and he went "underground." But only a few months
later, he "resurfaced" on the eve of the battle of Basra (the battle of
the Camel). It was, his creators claim, he who was responsible for that
deplorable battle. However, during or immediately after the battle, he
disappeared again, and this time he disappeared forever. It is truly
remarkable that he could vanish without leaving a trail or a trace behind
him. His act of vanishing was so perfect as if he had never "existed."

Actually, the "necessity" which had led to the invention of Abdullah bin
Saba, had ceased to exist. His creators, therefore, junked him. But even
today, he is exhumed from time to time when Sunni historians want to
"explain" the unpalatable facts of that epoch.

Dr. Taha Husain, the modern Egyptian historian, has exploded the Abdullah
bin Saba myth in his book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra. He has pointed out that
Tabari is the first historian who wrote about Abdullah bin Saba. He heard
about him from one Umar bin Saif. Abdullah bin Saba was born in the head
of Umar bin Saif. But in the sources before Tabari, Abdullah bin Saba has
not been mentioned anywhere. This is strange because such an important
"personage" as Abdullah bin Saba who disrupted the Muslim society in the
times of Uthman, should have received no notice from pre-Tabari historians.

Dr. Taha Husain further raises the question that even if it is assumed
that Abdullah bin Saba was preaching false and heretical doctrines, was it
he who "tempted" Uthman to appoint a character like Marwan as his prime
minister? The Muhajireen and the Ansar resented Marwan's elevation since
in their sight he was little more than a leper. And was Uthman acting upon
the advice and guidance of Abdullah bin Saba when he dismissed the
governors of the provinces who had been appointed by Umar bin al-Khattab,
and appointed his own relatives in their stead? This was one of the major
causes of disaffection in the provinces.
<unquote>
http://hozeh.tebyan.net/Html/libfar/2864/58.htm
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-05 19:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Damn. This is all Jewish conspiracy! heehee
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-05 18:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning exposed
on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant evidence
point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever, either.
To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical truth the diary
of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen
Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-05 19:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Damn. This is all Jewish conspiracy! heehee
RBRK
2005-10-06 02:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause
of Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of
early Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we
show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6
yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning
exposed on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant
evidence point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever,
either. To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical
truth the diary of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who
wrote down that Queen Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
I am sure you are either stupid or a lying mooooselem. I suggest you take
some english courses and then read the hadith narrated by Aisha herself.
And do not give me the crap about her being 17 or 19, you idiot liar
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-06 03:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause
of Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of
early Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we
show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6
yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning
exposed on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant
evidence point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever,
either. To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical
truth the diary of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who
wrote down that Queen Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-06 10:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause
of Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of
early Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we
show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6
yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning
exposed on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant
evidence point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever,
either. To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical
truth the diary of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who
wrote down that Queen Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You will
probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of yourself
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-06 23:02:33 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You will
probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9 years, the
others put her much older. Obviously, as your interest is to discredit
Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll only take the more
negative accounts, and then present them as if they were the only ones,
going as further as claiming that those Hadiths are the words of God,
something no learned Muslim would ever say.

I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone who
may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good discussions
on the matter:

http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-06 23:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha
herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You will
probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith
collections is only one between many others, often contradicting each
other. On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9
years, the others put her much older. Obviously, as your interest is
to discredit Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll
only take the more negative accounts, and then present them as if
they were the only ones, going as further as claiming that those
Hadiths are the words of God, something no learned Muslim would ever
say.
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
Look at all hadiths. I care less what mullahs say.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 00:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha
herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You will
probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith
collections is only one between many others, often contradicting each
other. On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9
years, the others put her much older. Obviously, as your interest is
to discredit Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll
only take the more negative accounts, and then present them as if
they were the only ones, going as further as claiming that those
Hadiths are the words of God, something no learned Muslim would ever
say.
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
Look at all hadiths. I care less what mullahs say.
Thus you admit you have been talking about something you don't know, nor
do you care to know.
Shame on you, RaBiRiKu.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-07 12:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha
herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You
will probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of
yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith
collections is only one between many others, often contradicting
each other. On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and
9 years, the others put her much older. Obviously, as your interest
is to discredit Islam and harass the people who believe in it,
you'll only take the more negative accounts, and then present them
as if they were the only ones, going as further as claiming that
those Hadiths are the words of God, something no learned Muslim
would ever say.
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for
anyone who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
Look at all hadiths. I care less what mullahs say.
Thus you admit you have been talking about something you don't know,
nor do you care to know.
Shame on you, RaBiRiKu.
I know enough that the 2 things that you Muzlims cannot refute is Hadith
& guran and Your excuses does not worth a thing.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 00:34:49 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by RBRK
Look at all hadiths. I care less what mullahs say.
Thus you admit you have been talking about something you don't know,
nor do you care to know.
Shame on you, RaBiRiKu.
I know enough that the 2 things that you Muzlims cannot refute is Hadith
Oh, but Muslism certainly can refute Hadith.
If a Muslim find signs of corruption on some Hadith, it is his obligation
to refute it, or at least not give much credit to that Hadith.
Post by RBRK
& guran and
To a Muslim, the Q'ran is the word of God, and he has to believe it
blindly.
It is interesting, however, that most of your attacks on Islam are
directed at Hadiths, rather than the Q'ran. One would expect the enemy to
attack the fundations, rather than the acessory.
I would say that you are a poor choice of an enemy, RaBiRiKu. :)
Post by RBRK
Your excuses does not worth a thing.
What excuses?
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-06 23:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You will
probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9 years, the
others put her much older.
How do you decide which is right and which is wrong.
The other put the age of marriage at 13-15 and consumation at between
16 and 18yr. So 51 yr prophet was setting up good example by marrying a
teenagers.
Brilliant!
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Obviously, as your interest is to discredit
Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll only take the more
negative accounts, and then present them as if they were the only ones,
going as further as claiming that those Hadiths are the words of God,
something no learned Muslim would ever say.
So you dont want to know that man who pretended to have direct line to
almighty was sexual deviant.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone who
may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good discussions
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-06 23:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
(..)I suggest you (..) read the hadith narrated by Aisha
herself.(..)
Why don't you post it here, along with your source?
I would also be interested in knowing why do you think that it was
narrated by Ayesha herself.
I am not going to make it easy for you.
Read SAHIH BUKHARI, Hadith, Volume 5, book 58 all the way. You
will probabely learn something rather than making a fool out of
yourself
As you have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI Hadith
collections is only one between many others, often contradicting each
other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9 years, the
others put her much older.
How do you decide which is right and which is wrong.
The other put the age of marriage at 13-15 and consumation at between
16 and 18yr. So 51 yr prophet was setting up good example by marrying
a teenagers.
Brilliant!
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Obviously, as your interest is to discredit
Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll only take the
more negative accounts, and then present them as if they were the
only ones, going as further as claiming that those Hadiths are the
words of God, something no learned Muslim would ever say.
So you dont want to know that man who pretended to have direct line to
almighty was sexual deviant.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the
world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because
it's the only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
I do not think he has ever read all Hadiths.
Many of them believe what they are told by their Imams, or muftis are
true words of Allah and they should not question them otherwise they go
to hell.

Gain their trust, Scare them and then use them.
Typical Brainwashing tactic in the cults.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 01:23:59 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
I do not think he has ever read all Hadiths.
No, I have not.
But then, I do not claim to be a scholar, or even an expert on Islam.
My college formation is as a scientist, and on science we have this nasty
habit of trying to find evidence that contradicts the stated conclusions
of someone else.
You may have the most sound theory who took an entire life to came up
with, and it is irreversibly destroyed in a matter of seconds when
contraditory evidence is found. That is the beauty of Science.

All this means is that I don't need to read all Hadiths to discredit your
claim about Ayesha age at time of marriage, I only have to read a few
which can be used as contradictory evidence. And then, splosh, there goes
your little pedophily theory down the toilet.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-07 17:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
I do not think he has ever read all Hadiths.
No, I have not.
But then, I do not claim to be a scholar, or even an expert on Islam.
My college formation is as a scientist, and on science we have this nasty
habit of trying to find evidence that contradicts the stated conclusions
of someone else.
But Koranic nonsense:
1. Sun resting in muddy spring.
2. Stars falling on Earth.
3. Earth being flat (Saudi expert in Koranic theology (Ulmah) even
issue fatwah to force this teaching)


Just answer the above for the day, before I post more.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 00:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by V S Rawat
[..]
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for
anyone
Post by RBRK
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
who may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
I do not think he has ever read all Hadiths.
No, I have not.
But then, I do not claim to be a scholar, or even an expert on Islam.
My college formation is as a scientist, and on science we have this nasty
habit of trying to find evidence that contradicts the stated conclusions
of someone else.
1. Sun resting in muddy spring.
2. Stars falling on Earth.
3. Earth being flat (Saudi expert in Koranic theology (Ulmah) even
issue fatwah to force this teaching)
Just answer the above for the day, before I post more.
First find out the relevant passages and respective Surahs, instead of
those vague assertions you took out of your head.
Don't expect me to do your homework for you. :P
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 01:12:25 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
As you [RaBiRiKu] have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI
Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
No.
It only demonstrates that men writing down Islamic History are sometimes
unreliable.
Nowhere in the Q'ran it is said that Men is always a reliable creature,
quite the opposite indeed. Only God is absolutely reliable, and only the
Q'ran is known to contain the indisputable word of God, or so says Islam.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
On the case of Aysha, only this story talks about 6 and 9 years, the
others put her much older.
How do you decide which is right and which is wrong.
Use your good sense and intelligence, if you have any.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The other put the age of marriage at 13-15 and consumation at between
16 and 18yr. So 51 yr prophet was setting up good example by marrying a
teenagers.
Brilliant!
I don't know about your culture, but here in Europe, in most countries, it
is perfectly acceptable for a teenager of 16 and above to marry. Until 10
years ago, here at Portugal, girls could legally marry at 14. The only
reason the law was changed was because gay lobbyists thought it was
unfair, as boys could only have sex legally above 16, so our Parliament
leveled both ages to 16 at gay lobbies request.
Personally I don't see anything wrong on a girl of 16 marrying a guy of
50, if that's what they both want, but I understand that some people may
be more radical on this matter. Only they should keep these views for
themselves, and not harass others with their own concept of morality.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Obviously, as your interest is to discredit
Islam and harass the people who believe in it, you'll only take the more
negative accounts, and then present them as if they were the only ones,
going as further as claiming that those Hadiths are the words of God,
something no learned Muslim would ever say.
So you dont want to know that man who pretended to have direct line to
almighty was sexual deviant.
You have not presented anything that would prove such a thing.
All you have posted is a list of postumous accounts of Mohammed's life,
which are contradicted by many others of similar credibility.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
I'll not spend much time discussing something that has already been
exhaustively discussed on other previous threads, but just for anyone who
may have any interest on this issue, here is one of those good discussions
Nothing of sort. Hadits clearly state she was 6yr old.
And others say she wasn't.
Of course, as you want Mohammed to be a "pedophile" at all costs, you'll
only read the ones that say Ayesha was 9 years old when she consumated
marriage with him.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
http://tinyurl.com/bn5at
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-07 17:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
As you [RaBiRiKu] have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI
Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
No.
It only demonstrates that men writing down Islamic History are sometimes
unreliable.
Nowhere in the Q'ran it is said that Men is always a reliable creature,
quite the opposite indeed. Only God is absolutely reliable, and only the
Q'ran is known to contain the indisputable word of God, or so says Islam.
Both Qr;an and Hadiths were written more tha centuries after pedo Mo
death, and relied on the same sources, i.e, human being.Quran was not
hand written by Allah or printed in Allah's own press; its composition
and printing was done by guess who? Yes humans not God.

It is pity that you dont recognise how dense individual you really are,
otherwise you would reflect before making patently contradictory and
downright idiotic statement.

Rest of idiotc garbage deleted.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 00:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
As you [RaBiRiKu] have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI
Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
No.
It only demonstrates that men writing down Islamic History are sometimes
unreliable.
Nowhere in the Q'ran it is said that Men is always a reliable creature,
quite the opposite indeed. Only God is absolutely reliable, and only the
Q'ran is known to contain the indisputable word of God, or so says Islam.
Both Qr;an and Hadiths were written more tha centuries after pedo Mo
death, and relied on the same sources, i.e, human being.Quran was not
hand written by Allah or printed in Allah's own press; its composition
and printing was done by guess who? Yes humans not God.
This is just your opinion.
In Islam, Q'ran is the unquestionable word of God, not of Mohammed or his
secretaries. Mohammed was just the messenger of that word.
If you say it isn't, then you are not talking about Islam, but about
something else.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
V S Rawat
2005-10-11 16:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
This is just your opinion.
In Islam, Q'ran is the unquestionable word of God, not of
Mohammed or his secretaries. Mohammed was just the messenger
of that word. If you say it isn't, then you are not talking
about Islam, but about something else.
On the one hand, you say that you don't have any religion, and
also that you are not interested in Islam.

On the other hand, you justify all the wild imaginations of
Islam, like a muslim.

Not very consistent.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 20:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by V S Rawat
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
This is just your opinion.
In Islam, Q'ran is the unquestionable word of God, not of
Mohammed or his secretaries. Mohammed was just the messenger
of that word. If you say it isn't, then you are not talking
about Islam, but about something else.
On the one hand, you say that you don't have any religion, and
also that you are not interested in Islam.
You seem to have soem reading issues.
Though I have said that I don't follow any Religion, I've also said more
than once that I have an interest on Islam, quite the opposite of what you
claim above.
Post by V S Rawat
On the other hand, you justify all the wild imaginations of
Islam, like a muslim.
Your problem does not seem to be with the arguments I've put forward, but
rather with the fact that someone is arguing with you and the rest of your
Kindergarten mates.
If you don't like to be opposed, stay silent, and you'll always win.
Post by V S Rawat
Not very consistent.
--
Believing in God throught Religion is like touring Venice in an organized
excursion. There are some advantages, of course, but you'll never see the
best of it.
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-11 20:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
As you [RaBiRiKu] have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI
Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
No.
It only demonstrates that men writing down Islamic History are sometimes
unreliable.
Nowhere in the Q'ran it is said that Men is always a reliable creature,
quite the opposite indeed. Only God is absolutely reliable, and only the
Q'ran is known to contain the indisputable word of God, or so says Islam.
Both Qr;an and Hadiths were written more tha centuries after pedo Mo
death, and relied on the same sources, i.e, human being.Quran was not
hand written by Allah or printed in Allah's own press; its composition
and printing was done by guess who? Yes humans not God.
This is just your opinion.
In Islam, Q'ran is the unquestionable word of God, not of Mohammed or his
secretaries. Mohammed was just the messenger of that word.
If you say it isn't, then you are not talking about Islam, but about
something else.
This Goddo of Q'ran is quite dumb he explains nighfall due to sun
resting in muddy waters. Hmm like a dumb Bedouine.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
As you [RaBiRiKu] have been told many times before, SAHIH BUKHARI
Hadith collections
is only one between many others, often contradicting each other.
If Hadiths, important Islamic hitorical are contradictory then it
demonstrates that Islamic history and its origib is unreliable.
No.
It only demonstrates that men writing down Islamic History are
sometimes
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
unreliable.
Nowhere in the Q'ran it is said that Men is always a reliable
creature,
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
quite the opposite indeed. Only God is absolutely reliable, and only
the
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Q'ran is known to contain the indisputable word of God, or so says Islam.
Both Qr;an and Hadiths were written more tha centuries after pedo Mo
death, and relied on the same sources, i.e, human being.Quran was not
hand written by Allah or printed in Allah's own press; its composition
and printing was done by guess who? Yes humans not God.
This is just your opinion.
In Islam, Q'ran is the unquestionable word of God, not of Mohammed or his
secretaries. Mohammed was just the messenger of that word.
If you say it isn't, then you are not talking about Islam, but about
something else.
This Goddo of Q'ran is quite dumb he explains nighfall due to sun
resting in muddy waters. Hmm like a dumb Bedouine.
Can you cite the appliable Q'ran passage?
Or perhaps there is none?
--
Believing in God throught Religion is like touring Venice in an organized
excursion. There are some advantages, of course, but you'll never see the
best of it.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-05 18:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning exposed
on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant evidence
point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever, either.
To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical truth the diary
of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen
Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
RBRK
2005-10-05 19:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Damn. This is all Jewish conspiracy! heehee
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-06 21:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning exposed
on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant evidence
point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever, either.
To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical truth the diary
of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen
Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the
most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of
pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept
that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and
consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years
old.


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 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., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I
have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years
(i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six
years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine
years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his
death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking
him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the
proof.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said
"But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in
Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to
marry."

Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had
some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example,
although they fought all the year round, they abstained from
hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also
considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A
adopted son's wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would
not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of
brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet
disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his
interests or whims.

Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So
according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to
the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when
she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a
woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He
said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But
Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes
of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of
her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream)
before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then
you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please
Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that
Ayesaha was a baby being "carried" by an angel when the Prophet
dreamed of her.

There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at
the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got
ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother,
Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my
girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she
wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the
door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became
Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then
she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women
who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she
entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother
handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of
age.

And in another Hadith we read.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number
4917
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or
six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's
version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made
me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I
was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of
little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly
interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not
aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet "surprised" her by
going to her.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
Narrated Aisha:
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the
house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of
Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.


Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting
because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls.
Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She
was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)


Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my
girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to
enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet
would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls
and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that
time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)
(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were
with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years
old.

The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha
when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
Narrated 'Aisha:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she
had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was
because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had
ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace
in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and
distribute its meat among her friends.


Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At
that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that
Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3
years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he
married Umm Salama.

In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents
were always Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245

Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in
any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),



If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have
remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People
are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for
those who have eyes.

No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people
wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them.
The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so
many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm
each other?
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-06 22:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning exposed
on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant evidence
point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever, either.
To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical truth the diary
of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen
Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the
most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of
pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept
that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and
consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years
old.
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
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., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I
have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years
(i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six
years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine
years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his
death).
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking
him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the
proof.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said
"But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in
Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to
marry."
Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had
some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example,
although they fought all the year round, they abstained from
hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also
considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A
adopted son's wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would
not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of
brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet
disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his
interests or whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So
according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to
the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when
she was only six years old.
But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a
woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He
said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "
Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But
Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes
of ethics and custom.
In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of
her before soliciting her from her father.
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream)
before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then
you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "
Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please
Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that
Ayesaha was a baby being "carried" by an angel when the Prophet
dreamed of her.
There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at
the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.
Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5.234
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got
ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother,
Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my
girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she
wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the
door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became
Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then
she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women
who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she
entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother
handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of
age.
And in another Hadith we read.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number
4917
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or
six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's
version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made
me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I
was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of
little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly
interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not
aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet "surprised" her by
going to her.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the
house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of
Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.
Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting
because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls.
Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She
was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my
girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to
enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet
would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls
and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that
time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)
(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were
with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years
old.
The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha
when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she
had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was
because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had
ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace
in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and
distribute its meat among her friends.
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At
that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that
Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3
years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he
married Umm Salama.
In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents
were always Muslims.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in
any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have
remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.
Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People
are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for
those who have eyes.
No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people
wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them.
The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so
many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm
each other?
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this becomes
a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look at these
hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to reach a
conclusion. This article, besides other, lists these historical facts.
As Muslims we do believe in the "authentic" hadiths however, if there
is any contradiction in the hadith then it does not pass the test of
being the most "authentic" hadith.

http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html

"Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad". This is
an incorrect statement in your post. Obviously the person who wrote
this either does not know the meaning of the word foster OR is
deliberatley trying to mislead people. Read below.

As far as the comment about Abu Bakr's "brotherhood" with the Prophet.
A brother in religion, as both Abu Bakr and Prophet (pbuh) were, DOES
NOT equate to being brother in blood or foster brothers (suckled by the
same woman as infants). This is very important in Islam. Just by
calling someone a brother DOES NOT make that person your brother in
blood and subsequently partner in inheritance. The following hadith
makes it clear,

Bukhari. Volume 7, Book 62, Number 43:
Narrated Um Habiba:
I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Marry my sister, the daughter of Abu
Sufyan." He said, "Do you like that?" I said, "Yes, for even now I am
not your only wife; and the most beloved person to share the good with
me is my sister." The Prophet said, "But that is not lawful for me
(i.e., to be married to two sisters at a time.)" I said, "O Allah's
Apostle! By Allah, we have heard that you want to marry Durra, the
daughter of Abu Salama." He said, "You mean the daughter of Um Salama?"
I said, "Yes." He said, "By Allah ! Even if she were not my
stepdaughter, she would not be lawful for me to marry, for she is my
foster niece, for Thuwaiba has suckled me and Abu Salama; so you should
neither present your daughters, nor your sisters to me."

Quran 4:23
"Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters,
sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters,
sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters
......"
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-06 22:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these NG's. If
this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not happy then she
sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen (Mother of the
believers) plus she would not have contributed so much in the cause of
Islam. She certainly would not have been in the forefront of early
Islam if she was abused, helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the reasoning exposed
on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other Hadiths
contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and redundant evidence
point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19 y.o.
In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings of men by
default. They are not historical evidence of anything whatsoever, either.
To blindly believe on them would be to take as historical truth the diary
of some 19th century Balmoral Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen
Victoria was, in fact, a transvestite.
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the
most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of
pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept
that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and
consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years
old.
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
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., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I
have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years
(i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six
years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine
years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his
death).
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking
him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the
proof.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said
"But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in
Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to
marry."
Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had
some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example,
although they fought all the year round, they abstained from
hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also
considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A
adopted son's wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would
not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of
brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet
disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his
interests or whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So
according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to
the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when
she was only six years old.
But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a
woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He
said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "
Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But
Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes
of ethics and custom.
In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of
her before soliciting her from her father.
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream)
before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then
you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "
Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please
Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that
Ayesaha was a baby being "carried" by an angel when the Prophet
dreamed of her.
There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at
the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.
Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5.234
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got
ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother,
Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my
girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she
wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the
door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became
Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then
she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women
who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she
entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother
handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of
age.
And in another Hadith we read.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number
4917
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or
six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's
version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made
me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I
was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of
little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly
interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not
aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet "surprised" her by
going to her.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the
house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of
Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.
Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting
because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls.
Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She
was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my
girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to
enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet
would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls
and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that
time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)
(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were
with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years
old.
The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha
when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she
had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was
because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had
ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace
in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and
distribute its meat among her friends.
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At
that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that
Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3
years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he
married Umm Salama.
In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents
were always Muslims.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in
any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have
remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.
Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People
are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for
those who have eyes.
No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people
wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them.
The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so
many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm
each other?
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this becomes
a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look at these
hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to reach a
conclusion.
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?

The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo childish
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.

Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
RBRK
2005-10-06 22:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by rkusenet
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by V S Rawat
A six year old was sure helpless.
The age is disputed as shown by number of articles in these
NG's. If this marriage was not successfull or if Aisha was not
happy then she sure would not have been called umm-ul-momeneen
(Mother of the believers) plus she would not have contributed
so much in the cause of Islam. She certainly would not have
been in the forefront of early Islam if she was abused,
helpless or forced into marriage.
ho ho ho. now articles in NGs is considered as proof, but when we show proof
in proislam site where it is openly acknowledged that ayesha was 6 yrs old
when
mofi mohd married her and 9 yrs when her vagina was penetrated
by that bastard, it immediately becomes a source of suspicion.
Are you stupid or what?
The proof is not those "articles on NGs", but rather the
reasoning exposed on them.
If you cared to read any of those, you would know that other
Hadiths contradict the 6 and 9 y.o. claims, and more sound and
redundant evidence point to Aysha marrying Mohammed at 17 or 19
y.o. In any case, Hadiths are not the word of God, but writings
of men by default. They are not historical evidence of anything
whatsoever, either. To blindly believe on them would be to take
as historical truth the diary of some 19th century Balmoral
Castle servant, who wrote down that Queen Victoria was, in fact,
a transvestite.
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the
most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of
pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to
accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old
and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then,
54 years old.
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
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., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine
years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by
heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was
six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was
nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till
his death).
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad
asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and
here is the proof.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr
said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother
in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me
to marry."
Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had
some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example,
although they fought all the year round, they abstained from
hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also
considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it.
A adopted son's wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they
would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made
a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers.
The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood
between him and his interests or whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So
according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece
to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even
when she was only six years old.
But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to
reject a woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of
Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "
Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But
Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the
codes of ethics and custom.
In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of
her before soliciting her from her father.
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my
dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a
silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and
behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah,
then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying
you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover
(her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from
Allah, then it must happen.' "
Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to
please Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it
indicates that Ayesaha was a baby being "carried" by an angel when
the Prophet dreamed of her.
There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of
Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.
Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when
she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage
when she was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5.234
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I
got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my
mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with
some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not
knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and
made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and
when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed
my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in
the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and
Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them
and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's
Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to
him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
And in another Hadith we read.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and
Number 4917
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was
seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to
Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They
took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to
the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up
cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door,
and I burst into laughter.
In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a
play of little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is
particularly interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small
that was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet
"surprised" her by going to her.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter
the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming
of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.
Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also
interesting because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing
with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the
parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of
puberty)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and
my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle
used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but
the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing
with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed
for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached
the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old,
and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her
dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was
eighteen years old.
The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married
Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though
she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that
was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his
Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would
have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to
slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra.
At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that
Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3
years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he
married Umm Salama.
In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her
parents were always Muslims.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing
in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would
have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming
Muslims.
Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies.
People are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like
the Sun for those who have eyes.
No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent
people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims
deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would
fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which
incidentally confirm each other?
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this
becomes a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look
at these hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to
reach a conclusion.
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo
childish claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Well said :-)
t***@yahoo.com
2005-10-06 23:30:20 UTC
Permalink
<snipped. getting too long>
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
Hadiths are NOT word of God i.e. Quran. Let's get that fact straight.
Hadiths must pass a strict rule of authenticity commonly reffered to as
isnad i.e. Chain of narrators, Must not contradict Quran, author must
not contradict himself etc. Majority of the hadiths were discarded by
the painstaking research of the earliest scholars for failing these
tests. When you look at a hadith like the ones you have quoted and then
look at some other historical facts then a contradiction is raised. In
this case, one has to do more research to come to a correct conclusion.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo childish
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
There is no doubt whatsoever about the authenticity of the noble Quran.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Islamic literature MUST pass the same rules of authenticity like
everything else. If hadith fails the above mentioned tests then that
hadith must be called corrupt and thus discarded. Either it's authentic
or it's not.
RBRK
2005-10-06 23:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
<snipped. getting too long>
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
Hadiths are NOT word of God i.e. Quran. Let's get that fact straight.
Hadiths must pass a strict rule of authenticity commonly reffered to as
isnad i.e. Chain of narrators, Must not contradict Quran, author must
not contradict himself etc. Majority of the hadiths were discarded by
the painstaking research of the earliest scholars for failing these
tests. When you look at a hadith like the ones you have quoted and then
look at some other historical facts then a contradiction is raised. In
this case, one has to do more research to come to a correct conclusion.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo childish
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
There is no doubt whatsoever about the authenticity of the noble Quran.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Islamic literature MUST pass the same rules of authenticity like
everything else. If hadith fails the above mentioned tests then that
hadith must be called corrupt and thus discarded. Either it's authentic
or it's not.
You are missing one fact.
Quran is the book of Laws. Hadiths are life stories of Mohammed to be
learned by muzlims. They are 2 Completely different books!!
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 00:49:58 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this becomes
a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look at these
hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to reach a
conclusion.
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
In case of doubt, you should't believe neither of those.
Meaning that the age of Aeysha at her marriage with Mohammed is by no
means a known and undisputed fact.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo childish
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
What has the Q'ran to do with this?
We are talking about Hadiths.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Has you have been told, the only book that Islam deems as undisputable is
Q'ran, nothing more, nothing less.
Hadiths may be, or may not be credible accounts of Mohhamed's life. You
are not obliged by Islam to believe on them: Nowhere on the Q'ran you will
find that Muslims should believe on Hadiths.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
m***@hotmail.co.uk
2005-10-07 17:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this becomes
a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look at these
hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to reach a
conclusion.
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
In case of doubt, you should't believe neither of those.
Meaning that the age of Aeysha at her marriage with Mohammed is by no
means a known and undisputed fact.
Then why should one believe that mass murderer pedo Mo was prophet?
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo childish
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
What has the Q'ran to do with this?
We are talking about Hadiths.
Because both Hadiths and Koran contents relied up similar sources.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Has you have been told, the only book that Islam deems as undisputable is
Q'ran, nothing more, nothing less.
There no evidence for the claim that Q'ran is more or less reliable
than Hadiths, The final version of Koran was completed around same time
as Hadiths were written.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Hadiths may be, or may not be credible accounts of Mohhamed's life. You
are not obliged by Islam to believe on them: Nowhere on the Q'ran you will
find that Muslims should believe on Hadiths.
But Muslims have to believe in Q'ran, unreliable chlidish rantings.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-11 01:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by rkusenet
[.]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Aisha's age at her marriage is a dispute if looked at within the
context of other historical facts of that time. When the hadiths that
you have quoted are compared with other historical facts, this
becomes
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
a dispute. Which basically means that we should not only look at
these
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by t***@yahoo.com
hadiths BUT also compare them with other historical facts to reach a
conclusion.
You admit that some Hadiths are inaccurate because they contradict
'other historical facts'. Why should one 'historical fact' be more
reliable than other
'historical fact', or one set of 'Hadiths' should be more or less
reliable than other 'Hadiths'?
In case of doubt, you should't believe neither of those.
Meaning that the age of Aeysha at her marriage with Mohammed is by no
means a known and undisputed fact.
Then why should one believe that mass murderer pedo Mo was prophet?
I don't know who is the "Mo" you are talking about, let alone if he was a
prophet.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by rkusenet
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The the further question is why would any one believe about Mo
childish
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
claims, or authenticity of Koran's authorship.
What has the Q'ran to do with this?
We are talking about Hadiths.
Because both Hadiths and Koran contents relied up similar sources.
Not according to Islam.
Q'ran is the word of God, while Hadiths are the words of people.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by rkusenet
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Once you start doubting one set of Islamic literature then you open
yourself to justifiable accusation that all Islamic literature is
garbage and coccoted stories.
Has you have been told, the only book that Islam deems as undisputable is
Q'ran, nothing more, nothing less.
There no evidence for the claim that Q'ran is more or less reliable
than Hadiths,
There is no evidence that God exists, either.
Either you believe that Q'ran is the word of God, or you don't.
If you don't believe that, then it is utterly futile to tell believers
that it is the word of Men, as it would be to deny the existence of God.
Unless, of course, if you have some sound historical evidence for your
claims, which I don't believe you have.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The final version of Koran was completed around same time
as Hadiths were written.
How do you know?
People like you, who have for entertainment attacking Islam, usually say
that the library of Alexandria was burnt by Muslims, because Uthman said
it either said the same as Q'ran, or it didn't, and in both cases the
appropriate action was to burn the library.
Now, how can the Q'ran already exist in the times of Uthman, but still
having been writen centuries after him?
Fact is that nobody knows when the first edition of the Q'ran was
completed. Nor you nor anyone else.

As for Hadiths, we know that they started being writen down in the times
of the Prophet, or soon after his death. At the times of Uthman and Imam
Ali they were already playing such an important and controversial part on
Islamic life, that Uthman forbade his followers Sunnis from writing down
Hadiths, for fear that they could end up being confused with the Q'ran
itself by morons like you.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by rkusenet
Hadiths may be, or may not be credible accounts of Mohhamed's life. You
are not obliged by Islam to believe on them: Nowhere on the Q'ran you will
find that Muslims should believe on Hadiths.
But Muslims have to believe in Q'ran, unreliable chlidish rantings.
Your opinion.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-10-07 00:40:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:32:52 +0100, <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[..]
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the
most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of
pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept
that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and
consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years
old.
<snipped collection of Hadiths, almost all from the same source and saying
the same thing>

I commend you to look at the argument presented by 1MAN4ALL at this
discussion, which seems sound enough to me to dismiss those Hadiths you
mention as unreliable:

http://tinyurl.com/bn5at

<snipped ABu Bakr stuff that does not say anything about the age of Aysha>
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of
her before soliciting her from her father.
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream)
before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then
you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I
said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "
Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please
Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that
Ayesaha was a baby being "carried" by an angel when the Prophet
dreamed of her.
No, it doesn't say such thing.
All it tells of a female being carroed on a silken piece of cloth, the
rest is your sick imagination at work.

<snipped more Hadiths from same source saying same thing as before>
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number
4917
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or
six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's
version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made
me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I
was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of
little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly
I don't know where you got this ideia that adolescent and even adult
people don't like to swing, especially women. It is certainly not true on
my culture, as by no means true for Aram Muslim girls either. Have a look
at last entry on Riverbend's blog, and you'll see a Muslim Arab Girl in
her 20's to whom swinging is part of daily life.
Furthermore, American romantic movies are so full of images of adolescent
girls swinging while they think about her loved ones, that your claim,
coming from someone living in the US as I presume you are, is simply
preposterous.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not
aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet "surprised" her by
going to her.
Yes, yes, in fact the Hadiths you mentioned were misread, and she was not
6 years, but 6 month old at the time.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the
house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of
Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.
I can't see how you got from this Hadith the conclusion you state, maybe
the explanation lies on your sick mind.
All we see is a young girl surprised when she knows the moment of the
wedding has come, it doesn't say it was good or bad.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting
because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls.
Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She
was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
The dolls episode was also discussed here previously. It seems to have
occured about 9 years after Aysha's marriage with Mohamemd, thus one way
or another, she was already a grown up girl:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/2af5890e084f6043

<snipped dolls Hadiths and irrelevant discussion about Mohammed's age>
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents
were always Muslims.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in
any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have
remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.
What is "true religion" here?
Why do assume it is Islam, which was a concept still in formation at that
time?
It's much more credible that this would mean something as the belief on
one unique God, as opposed to Politeism, one of the main ideias, if not
the main ideia, behind Mohammed's concept of religion.
You have disrespected all the laws of logic in order to come to your
conclusion.
Post by m***@hotmail.co.uk
Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People
are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for
those who have eyes.
Simple truths are good for simple people.
It fits those who wouldn't care to read all the available evidence in
order to jump to a simple and clear conclusion, not caring if it is true
or not.
It reminds me of Bush simple and clear conclusions about WMD in Iraq, and
the simpletons who believed them back then.
--
"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land
doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world
worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the
only thing that lasts." - Gerald O'Hara
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...