Aisha's age

Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
MHMD is a Phoenician word, you can write that in Hebrew, 'מחמד'
and the Greek cognate is θύμος and they refer to MHMD as a Merchant
which means an obvious Phoenician Jewish background and explains all the
Jewish characters in the Quran.

There is very little in the Quran that is native to Arabia, it is all Phoenician.
anything from any academic to confirm any of this??or is this just one of your pet theories?
 
Jul 2017
842
Crete
anything from any academic to confirm any of this??or is this just one of your pet theories?
It's all in the Quran, it mentions the same characters in the Phoenician Old Testament , Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, David, Solomon, all your favorite Jewish characters are in the Quran.

Muhammad couldn't be bothered to make new characters.

This is true for the so-called primitive Science stuff in Quran borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophers, such as embryology from Aristotle.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
It's all in the Quran, it mentions the same characters in the Phoenician Old Testament , Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, David, Solomon, all your favorite Jewish characters are in the Quran.
oh that way,its true AFAIK as well,quran claims to be successor of all abhramic faiths so its only natural it has all the people mentioned in other books of abhramic faiths

muhammad couldn't be bothered to make new characters.
he felt no need to,i guess,he did altered the stories though.

This is true for the so-called primitive Science stuff in Quran borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophers, such as embryology from Aristotle.
Quite true here,muhammad did borrow many things from greek philosphers but idea of creation of world,of god,etc were his own.
 
No i didn't,aisha was 9 when her marriage was consummated,that is the information you have to accept even if you are saying she existed in the first place,since you don't,she was a fictional character by muslim scholars whose marriage was consummated when she was 9,either way her marriage was consummated at 9.

You get to pick whether or not you consider her to be real or imaginary not her age of consummation.
I don't have to accept she was 9 at all, because you've no proof saying she was, I don't know Aisha's age, no one does.

I can pick her age of consummation as much as the next person has, either in or outside of Islam.

There is no written proof before Hisham or Bukhari stating she is 9, M.D Islam tried to say Maliks work did but he cannot prove it because Malik's written Hadith doesn't exist except a few fragment, none of which mention Aisha.

Anyway this has been done to death :deadhorse: and we're just going around in circles.

I've proven everything I've claimed with regards to showing there is no historical proof of Aisha's age other than through supposed oral transmission, numerous edits, numerous doctoring by all authors involved ......... there isn't even enough evidence outside of Islam to prove she existed let alone that they knew her age 200 or 100 years later.

I am done here and moving on to other things, I've done a lot of the leg work and research for everyone in this thread and my compiled post of almost everything mentioned stands on proven merit.

I'm bowing out, my work here is done.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
I don't have to accept she was 9 at all, because you've no proof saying she was, I don't know Aisha's age, no one does.
actually you HAVE to.
as i explained earlier.

1. IF you accept islamic sources as historical,that means she existed and was 9 at age of consummation

2. IF you don't accept islamic sources,that means she was a fictional character of muslim scholars and was 9 at age of consummation.

why would you question a fiction anyway?
you might very well say muhammad consummating the marriage is part of that fictional story,its fine.


I can pick her age of consummation as much as the next person has, either in or outside of Islam.

There is no written proof before Hisham or Bukhari stating she is 9, M.D Islam tried to say Maliks work did but he cannot prove it because Malik's written Hadith doesn't exist except a few fragment, none of which mention Aisha.
Ishaq's biography does exist,as i pointed out hisham only omitted things not altered them.

Anyway this has been done to death :deadhorse: and we're just going around in circles.

I've proven everything I've claimed with regards to showing there is no historical proof of Aisha's age other than through supposed oral transmission, numerous edits, numerous doctoring by all authors involved ......... there isn't even enough evidence outside of Islam to prove she existed let alone that they knew her age 200 or 100 years later.
exactly,infact this is what i stated earlier,you need not post anymore as you have proven aisha herself does not exist outside islamic sources which are unreliable due to oral transmission according to you.
so anybody stating anything about aisha need to trust islamic sources in the first place.
so any question about a fictional character consummating marriage with a real person does not exist.
this way we would know nothing about muhammad including his marriage with aisha.
I am done here and moving on to other things, I've done a lot of the leg work and research for everyone in this thread and my compiled post of almost everything mentioned stands on proven merit.

I'm bowing out, my work here is done.
k
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
No he's not, maybe to you, but 200+ years after said persons is later than all the sources we've been looking at as we're trying to get near the source, Bukhari's Hadith was the final compilation done almost 100 yrs after others had already been done like Ibn Ishaq's.
The sources you use to claim Aisha was older than. 9 came after Bukhari,
. And while some.premodern scholars have questioned Ishaq, none questioned the reliability of Bukhari. And Ishaq never said Aisha was older than 9 when Muhammad had sex with Aisha

All the sources.aboout Muhammad come from long after his time. The few references of Muhammad from contemporary Christian sources contradict the traditional Muslim accounts, claim that Muhammad was leading g the Arabs in their conquest when he was already read according to traditional Muslim accounts.

Who said he wasn't? yes he is considered a trusted source by religious men even after Bukhari edited his own work, why wouldn't he be? he's stating what they wanted him to state ........ and it can't be historically proven, Bukhari was copying and pasting from older Hadiths, why you hold that in such high regard I don't know?
You are evading the fact I.pointed out. No premodern.Muslimschar was critical of Bukhari and the legends he reported. If you have a peemodern.scholar who questioned Bukhari's reliability, produce that scholar from before the modern era. if you can't produce that scholar, then stop.evading the issue and be honest enough to admit that no pre-modern Muslim SC toholar was critical of Bukhari. So far, you haven't addressed that issue, but try to ignored it.

It was Muslims that highly regarded Bukhari as a source, and many still.do. Are you going to flat out lie, and claim that Bukhari was not a respected source of pre-modern Muslims? Answer the question. Whether some modern Muslims regard Bukhari as reliable or not is not relevant to what pre-modern Muslims thought.
I


No its not, discrediting Bukhari's work is simply due to the fact he edited it and no one know's how much, his original sources were edited and most were oral translations on top of that .......... so this cannot be considered historical fact for e.g Aisha's age ......... which I've already shown has already been changed via different authors even before Bukhari.
You haven't shown or proven anything. The sourcrs you use to disprove Bukhari on Aisha's age are not as old as Bukhari, a fact you try to hide. Not have you provided pre-modern Muslim sources that questioned the reliability of Bukhari. And the criticism you level against Bukhari is equally applicable to every other source about Muhammad except a few scraps of information in the Koran and from early Christian sources, none of which mention Aisha.


We're looking at sources older than Bukhari so ............
No we are not. You are flat out lying if you claim you have provided sources older than Bukhari that gave Aisha's age as being older than what Bukhari said.

Name the specific Muslim source that is older than Bukhari which specifical have an age of Aisha that was older than 9 years when Muhammad. What is the source older than Bukhari that states that Aisha was older than 9 years d when Muhammad had sex with her? Stop claiming you said it when you did, when you hVent. It can't be the KorN, since the Koran nowhere mentions Aisha's name.

Oh dear this is so boring, I don't need to be a mind reader, you act like these accusations are coming from me personally, also I provide proof for anything I state and I've stated what the agenda and accusation is ........ I've also demonstrated her age has been changed multiple times already.
Nice try to evade the question, but what you say isn't true. You have neither shown that Bukhari was not a highly respected source by Muslims, and that Muslims specifically rejected what Bukhari said about Aisha's age, nor have you provided sources that were written before Bukhari that indicate Aisha's age was older than 9 when Muhammad had sex with her.

As a matter of fact, the sources you cited didn't even given Aisha's age, you had to infer it from what the source did say, and the source was written after Bukhari. We're the sources that said Asme was 10 years older than Aisha the same sources that said Asme was 100 years? If not, then your calculation of Aisha's age is invalid.

Well I do......... it also doesn't change the fact her age can't be proven as historical fact and its been changed from various sources older than Bukhari.
What sources older than Bukhari gave Aisha's age? You haven't given any. You gave sources more recent than Bukhari, not older, to support your claims about Aisha's age.

And it isn't about what Aisha's age actually was, which we can never prove, I agree, but about what Muslims traditionally believed Aisha's age was, which we can prove. And many, if not most, pre-modern Muslims believed Aisha was only 9 when Muhammad had sex with her. The acceptance of Bukhari and the lack of criticism of what Bukhari wrote proves this. Muslims were critical of Ishaq, but it was not over Aisha's age.


I don't care, that's not what we're discussing.

This post is tragic its almost like you've missed out on this whole thread.
Yes, this is what we are talking about, and it is the point of the thread. Whether Muslims.believed Muhammad had sex, i.e. raped by modern standards, with a 9 year old is relevant. The actions of what Muslims believed Muhammad clearly inspires the action of modern Muslims, like ISIS and others. At the end of the day, almost all of what we know about Muhammad is what Muslims believed about him. We have extremely little information about Muhammad from non Muslim sources.

you
Unless you come with a response of worth I'll just copy and paste my responses to you.

Over 50 pages in and the opposing side still has zero evidence of Aisha's age so they're just continuously firing back bit part posts trying to stay relevant.
You have not answered my questions, only pretended to. I use Bukhari, because he was a source that was commonly used and trusted by Muslims themselves. If modern Muslims want to reject Bukhari and reject that Aisha's age was only 9, I think that is great, but the people you need to convince are Aisha, and that won't happen if you don't admit the truth that in the past, many/most Muslims did think Aisha's age was 9. If you reject some claims in old Muslim sources, but still accept some others, as you seem to be doing, then you won't be able to persuade Muslims like ISIS members.

I actually don't care if Muslims today.want to now claim Aisha was 9, I think that is good, but I do care about the rewriting of history, and making claims that aren't true. Like it or not, many Muslims did believe Aisha was 9, and ISIS members and others know it. So who are you trying to fool?

to
I think its time to conclude that if they could prove it .......... they would of by now.

:deadhorse:
It seems that if you could have provided sources that could show many/most pre-modern.Muslims did not believe Aisha was 9, or that even the majority of modern Muslims believe that she was older, you would have done so. You haven't.

The fact that so far you can take even give a source that specifically gives Aisha's age, but only sources that you have to infer Aisha's age, while there were historically trusted sources that did specifically state Aisha age as 9, sort of undermines your claims.
 
nor have you provided sources that were written before Bukhari that indicate Aisha's age was older than 9 when Muhammad had sex with her.
Yes I have, but thanks for coming.

No we are not. You are flat out lying if you claim you have provided sources older than Bukhari that gave Aisha's age as being older than what Bukhari said.
I'm not going to repeat the rest of your ridiculous quote except to say two things ..........

1. Was it not you telling me not to use words like "liar"?, hypocrite.

2. I have provided sources older than Bukhari in both Hadiths, Sira and the age variation for Aisha.

If your to absent minded to not have seen the multiple times its been posted that's not my fault, but I'd prefer it if you refrained from insulting me about it ....... although I wish you had seen it, because it would of saved you 10mins of your time typing up that long rant of nothing.

........... and no, I'm not doing anymore leg work for you, you go back and find it, that's why no one, even from your side is agreeing with you, because they've all seen the evidence I've posted, what the hell do you think we've been discussing for 50+ pages?

I've been copying and pasting previous posts for the last 3 days, I'm done doing it now.

You may of missed it (somehow) but everyone in here, for or against has been discussing sources older than Bukhari for two different threads now, Bukhari is late news.

This is another reason I'm not taking part in this thread anymore, these discussions have been had, I'm not parroting for your benefit.

Your question on "What muslim said Bukhari's work is unreliable" is the worst question I've seen in this thread and that is saying something, what makes it even worse is that I never said they did?? why would they, this is the version they all signed off on....... 200 years later :suspicious:
 
Last edited:
One and I mean one last time, I'm going to do this ................

Post #549 page 55

I'll even go into more detail than what was posted ...........

Author: Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi
Born: 789 AD
Book: Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra

Compared to Bukhari, born: 810 AD ........ I believe that qualifies as before Bukhari, but thanks for calling me a liar.

This is the apparent translation of what was said in the book.

"Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

He claimed his sources for his book on the life of Muhammed were his source Hisham ibn Urwah (a grandson of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam).

........ its actually getting boring reigning in your wild accusations and winning these debates so thoroughly, quite embarrassing for you I imagine?
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
One and I mean one last time, I'm going to do this ................

Post #549 page 55

I'll even go into more detail than what was posted ...........

Author: Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi
Born: 789 AD
Book: Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra

Compared to Bukhari, born: 810 AD ........ I believe that qualifies as before Bukhari, but thanks for calling me a liar.

This is the apparent translation of what was said in the book.

"Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

He claimed his sources for his book on the life of Muhammed were his source Hisham ibn Urwah (a grandson of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam).

........ its actually getting boring reigning in your wild accusations and winning these debates so thoroughly, quite embarrassing for you I imagine?
Which page is that quotation from?can you direct me towards the english translation of the book?i would look into it myself if you do not want to provide the specific page.

cause i highly doubt this,cause this line

"Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

is from book of ahmaddiya scholar who first challenged the notion that aisha was older than 9 at age of consummation in 20th century.
here is the line from his book.
http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/livingthoughtsprophetmuhammad/livingthoughtsprophetmuhammad.pdf

check page 30,footnote 40.

so any original source is welcome.
 
Its not a direct quotation its a summary of someone who read the book stating and so .............

Multiple sites have stated that the dates, ages, info etc given in the Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra make Aisha 10 on engagement and 14-15 on consummation.

This site apparently has multiple scholars, links or peoples in the footnote who have cited different to her age however apart from the source I mentioned I don't know if these other's they've looked at are older sources or contemporary ones, you will have to look yourself, same as regarding the English translation of the Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra I'm sure there's one out there.

Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage

I'd like to make clear though, this particular inquiry is not my agenda, for some reason Bart Dale is biting on this like its the point .......... it is not, I was just clarifying his ridiculous accusation that I'm lying, I've backed up with evidence practically every point I've made in this thread.

Even if all I said was incorrect on this particular issue (which its not) that doesn't change the core of this debate which is proving Aisha's age (which we've all agreed is not possible) as historical fact.

I've just stated evidence of an apparent variance prior to Bukhari ......... but even if there wasn't, it changes nothing in the main, again that conclusion was done a while ago.

Good luck with your research, I'm out.