Folks, I've found 30 pages of mistakes in several catagories, and there are plenty of problems with many parts of the book. Yet I don't think muslims in general read much about the analysis of the information. Are you not allowed to discuss it or think about it?

For example Allah didn't tell Muhammad that the Earth orbits the sun? 

Muhammad's realy life if full of problems, why do you think god would talk to a man with a such troubled life? Just wondering your ideas, no disrespect intented. Kind Regards, Fog.

For the sheer reason that a mistake thinks every other thing to be mistake like him / her or even if that happens to be in between.

I am in no mood for becoming your attention fix, but if you had read it with a bit of attention you would have noted that Allah did tell Muhammad that the Earth orbits the sun

But then we can't do much if we are not created. Manufactured stuff always bangs about a bit like that.

My sincere condolence

Whisper wrote: For the sheer reason that a mistake thinks every other thing to be mistake like him / her or even if that happens to be in between. I am in no mood for becoming your attention fix, but if you had read it with a bit of attention you would have noted that Allah did tell Muhammad that the Earth orbits the sun But then we can't do much if we are not created. Manufactured stuff always bangs about a bit like that. My sincere condolence

Hmmm...dont see any direct quotes..this guy must be reading an english translation of the Quran..translated by a man...does this person who says there is mistakes read Arabic so that he may understand the correct meaning? So he is bangaing quite a bit, and isn't manufactured synonymous with "fabricated'?

Maryah wrote: Hmmmm Fogtrik, tell me, did I meet you in a previous life? Maybe someone should compare his IP address with one that was previously banned?

Oh My GOD !!!

Maryah, why you always suspect that the person has come to 'another life' ?  You asked me almost same thing once. Remember !!

Kashif

By the way Fog 30 pages of mistake is a 'CLAIM', I have never heard even from the hardest of Muslim and Islam bashers !!!  Can you elaborate few more sentences from those thirty pages ?!

Kashif

ak_m_f,

"apple pie? is that you? george I missed you! come back
 "

It can't be George. He wouldn't perform this kind of trick.

I have been banned on a holy non-Muslim site up to 6th September 2006. Perhaps, I am being missed.   

fogtrik,

Is this some kind of new trick?

From you:

"Folks, I've found 30 pages of mistakes in several catagories, and there are plenty of problems with many parts of the book. Yet I don't think muslims in general read much about the analysis of the information. Are you not allowed to discuss it or think about it?"

Oh! Yeah, we are allowed to deliberate and discuss Qur'aan. In fact we are commanded to deliberate more.

You are welcome to point out and we will clarify.

Before I conclude this short post, I must say that Thank God, God did not tell Muhammad that there were four corners of Earth and it was a foot-stool.  

BMZ

You are welcome to point out and we will clarify.

I must cite you for a Nobel Prize in Patience and with such a fogtrik.

Had I not majored in Psychology and known a few of such chaps, I would have said a few more things, but thank goodness, his ilk keeps shrinks in their luxurious lifestyles.

fogtrik,

Don't quote from anti-islam sites here. If you are interested in sincere dialogue, come up with your doubts one by one and they will be taken care of. Please comply with guidelines:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5123&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5123& ;PN=1

He is not the same He Who was so tired and exhausted the He had to take a rest on the Seventh Day.

We have been through this umpteen times before. If you dig out the past posts on the forum or elsewhere, you will find that has been done.

Qur'aan does not imply that semen production in Sam Shamoun's body takes place in Sam Shamoun's kidney or Sam Shamoun's back area: Therefore, we are left with the very real problem that Sam Shamoun's semen is coming from the back or kidney area if it is not coming from his testicles. I hope Sam Shamoun does not have oral or verbal diarrhoea, in which case his semen can come from.... 

Note: If other moderators consider my language foul, please edit.  

His identity is not the topic.

Fog can you start post what you have in hand now with the first one first so you don't have to spend time typing, just one at the time thanks.

Poor FogTrik seems to find everything and even Life a mistake.

Is someone forcing you to read the Quran, poor chap or, as sister Maryah said, poor it?

Sorry folks, I'll read all the verse from the sections that I found and post again, once I've read them in their context.

There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction?

Kind Regards,  

As humans, I suggest, we should pass the hat around and collect for this poor chap. It can be quite an expensive affair to afford a shrink in some countries.

If you study his statements, you will notice that the chap in real bad state.

Whisper, I live in the real world, where god per say would be a 'theory of everything'. Its clear from the natural history of the universe that life evolved. If the Quran was correct it would have said that man and ape have a common ansector. But didn't, so its not the word of god. This is simple logic. Trying to get any of you to think rationally about science evidence is pointless. I should seek therapy because creationists annoy me!

you guys are just too funny aqu�,  especially usted Whisper all�!  LOL!

we got to stop monkeying around and give this homosapien a chance.

amalhayati2 wrote: you guys are just too funny aqu�,  especially usted Whisper all�!  LOL! we got to stop monkeying around and give this homosapien a chance.

whoa, my 'i's' with an accent mark turned into the arabic letter for 'y'.  well that's uncanny.  phonetically it's the same though...  

fogtrik wrote:   Whisper, I live in the real world, where god per say would be a 'theory of everything'. Its clear from the natural history of the universe that life evolved. If the Quran was correct it would have said that man and ape have a common ansector. But didn't, so its not the word of god. This is simple logic. Trying to get any of you to think rationally about science evidence is pointless. I should seek therapy because creationists annoy me!

fogtrik,

You keep jumping from one point to the other without a mindset to have a sincere dialogue. I told you that start with one topic at a time to properly discuss it. But, it seems that your only purpose here is to defame Islam. You are warned to comply with guidelines.

Peace

fogtrik wrote:   Sorry folks, I'll read all the verse from the sections that I found and post again, once I've read them in their context. There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction? Kind Regards,

fogtrik,

Once again, please bring one doubt at a time to properly discuss.

Peace

fogtrik wrote:  If the Quran was correct it would have said that man and ape have a common ansector. But didn't, so its not the word of god. This is simple logic. Trying to get any of you to think rationally about science evidence is pointless. I should seek therapy because creationists annoy me!

Hey foggy ol' pal, have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the indubitable similarities we have with other animals might be a hint that we have all have come about by ONE method of creation?.   like, if there were numerous gods (god of fire, water earth.. bla, bla, bla) there would be numerous types of creations related to each 'creator'.  Nothing would have a single thing in common with the other.  but the fact that everything living on this planet from the past and present are all astoundingly similar in their form and composition, it gives the clearest message that there is only ONE method of creation. A method from ONE God.  

so all you pagans out there-  TAKE THAT for a proof! we don't need to hear yo pathetic arguments cuz anything and everything around you sends you a clear message: 'there is only ONE God'  'there is only ONE God' 

for all you atheists out there, open yo mind up a little bit more and you'll realize that it doesn't take much to believe in God.  You can believe in science and all them natural laws and all them natural phenomenon that occurred.. all under the power of a Divine.

but don't try to think too hard and worry about stuff that hurt yo brain.  Allah said loud and clear:

�I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selves�  18:51

fogtrik wrote:   Folks, I've found 30 pages of mistakes in several catagories, and there are plenty of problems with many parts of the book. Yet I don't think muslims in general read much about the analysis of the information. Are you not allowed to discuss it or think about it?

You make a great deal of assertions, but you provide little in the way of an argument. Perhaps you are in need of a basic course in logic?

I will discuss anything you want. I hope you are equipped to provide a real discussion, unlilke your shortcomings in the creation thread.

fog wrote: For example Allah didn't tell Muhammad that the Earth orbits the sun?

Lets assume this.

The question now is: So what?

IN other words, you rae somehow assuming some unargued position buried in your question.

Please clarify.

So what?

fog wrote: Muhammad's realy life if full of problems,

No one has argued that he did not have any problems. You had problems arguing very basic claims in the creation thread. So if having problems denies any validity to a great man, then what does it say about someone who is mediocre?

fog wrote:  why do you think god would talk to a man with a such troubled life?

Complex question. You are basing this quesiton on the assumption that Gd only comunicates with someone who has never had a problem. A woman once asked the Buddah to give her the secret to immortality. The Buddah asked the woman to bring him a mustard seed from a home that had known no death.

After a lenghty quest, she was unable to find such a seed, and she was enlightened.

The fact is, no one has lived on this earth and not known problems.

This is going off the main point what you have assumed: Gd does not talk to someone with a problem.

Argue this.

fog wrote:    Just wondering your ideas, no disrespect intented. Kind Regards, Fog.

You bet!

fogtrik wrote:   Sorry folks, I'll read all the verse from the sections that I found and post again, once I've read them in their context. There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction? Kind Regards,

True!

Knowledge01 wrote: fogtrik wrote:   Sorry folks, I'll read all the verse from the sections that I found and post again, once I've read them in their context. There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction? Kind Regards,   Pure fiction.

Assalam Aleikum Br.

Most scholars agree that Aisha was 6 when she was betrothed (a typical semitic custom) and at 9 she married the Prophet (saw). The waiting period from betrothel to marriage marks the point when the female showed signs of maturity. The strongest evidence also suggests she was 9.

In Sahih Bukhari, a hadith is narrted four times with similar matn, and Aisha narrates that she was 6 at time of betrothel and 9 at times of consumtion. You will find this relayed in Sahih Muslim, 3 times, with similar matn (wording), and the age is very clear.

fogtrik wrote:   Whisper, I live in the real world, where god per say would be a 'theory of everything'.

This sounds close to scientific pantheism, which is a tautological trash can. It simply claims to agrees with science, therefore it is correct. But when science makes updates, making the past wrong, well, then the believers just say, "we agree with this too so our belief system is superior", even though their system of thought was just advocating a false idea before the latest findings.

Furthermore, you are assuming what Gd must be, or must not be.

You need to argue this position. Your assumptions have no real value in such a discourse.

fog wrote: Its clear from the natural history of the universe that life evolved.

1) You are once again asserting yoru beliefs. As an example, I may simply respond back, "Not it is not". There. Now what do we do?

2) If it is so clear, then why did you never once, directly deal with any of my counter points in the creation thread. Never once did you actually demonstrate how your copy and paste contributions prove yoru claim?

fog wrote:  If the Quran was correct it would have said that man and ape have a common ansector. But didn't, so its not the word of god.

Supposition. Neither is it a fact that man evolved from an ape like ancestor, nor have you given any solid argument to even allow for your position in such a manner.

Also, please clarify why Gd must agree with scientific theories?

fog wrote:    This is simple logic. Trying to get any of you to think rationally about science evidence is pointless. I should seek therapy because creationists annoy me!

No, it is not even crude logic. You have not shown even the slightest sign of knowing what logic is, much less being able to apply it.

You have yet to apply a single "logical" argument to any point I gave you in creation thread. You have commited various fallacies, allowing us to conlcude that you have no real idea what logic is.

Here is a lesson for you.

I challenge you to provide for me a logical bases for the phenomena called "cause and effect". Inductive reasoning is based upon the observation of cause and effect, or the "connection" between them. The theory of evolution molests induction to all bounds to make their ideas work.

You have so much faith in this. You will come to find that there is no raitonal bases for the connection between cause and effect. Happy hunting!

hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that.  What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?  where's the logic in that?

amalhayati2 wrote: hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.

Yes.

amalhayati wrote:  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)

Ok.

amalhayati wrote:  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that.

All opinions are welcome!

amalhayati wrote:   What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?

habit

alalhayati wrote:  where's the logic in that?

fogtrick,

From you: "There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction?"

First, he did not marry Aisha in his early life because she would not have been born and if she had, then she must have been cutting her teeth.

Second, there is only one hadith from one person, I think it is Hisham, on this subject and that is also not reliable. Perhaps, you would like to think hard that Aisha narrated many ahaadith and there is not a single hadith quoted by her saying when was she married. Aisha, Prophet and her father and many Companions of the prophet would have known when and at what age did she get married and they did not talk about that. Nobody in that culture asked such silly questions.   

Aisha was present at the Battle of Badr, helping people with water and tending to those injured. No person below fourteen was allowed by Prophet to take part in battles. Boys below 14 were sent home. Aisha was not married to him at that time. So, Prophet must have married her when she was 15-18.

The Arabs of the 7th Century were living in a modern time compared with the people who lived in the First Century.  They had morals, values, customs and culture. If you have any knowledge about the history and culture of Arabs and various tribes in the region, you will know that they were not giving away their daughters to men at the age of 3-12.  If you don't know ask the US Military in Iraq about the tribes and their culture. They would know.

Kinder Regards,

BMZ

whisper,

"I must cite you for a Nobel Prize in Patience and with such a fogtrik."

I heard ya!   Looks like you and me come from the family of Job.

Okay okay, I'm not being anti muslim, first off. Let's assume that evolution is fact, for discussion sakes. I started a discussion on mistakes, then all the creation stuff in the Quran is wrong, is it not? I give up. Is there not a single rational muslim in the world who can think there are mistakes in the Quran?

fogtrik wrote:   Okay okay, I'm not being anti muslim, first off. Let's assume that evolution is fact, for discussion sakes. I started a discussion on mistakes, then all the creation stuff in the Quran is wrong, is it not? I give up. Is there not a single rational muslim in the world who can think there are mistakes in the Quran?

I cannot, for the life of me, find any reason or benefit, for the sake of discussion, that I assume your assertions. You blindly assert your evolution myth, and have yet to rationally demonstrate that it is the truth.

Please provide a good reason why I should make the assumptions you have asked for. 

fogtrik wrote:   Okay okay, I'm not being anti muslim, first off. Let's assume that evolution is fact, for discussion sakes. I started a discussion on mistakes, then all the creation stuff in the Quran is wrong, is it not? I give up. Is there not a single rational muslim in the world who can think there are mistakes in the Quran?

fogtrick ur too funny!    listen, had the quran been written by human hand, you'dve found that every century or so there'd be another version that would accomidate them ppl of that very century.. like how the bible has been 'evolving' over time.  right now you'll find hundreds of different versions of that there bible. 

tell me, how many versions of the Quran have you come by?  the arabic is exactly the same from Quran to Quran but lemme tell ya there a whole lota trusted scholars who have had the honor to translate the Quran word for word.  you'd see various translations, all of which bring out the exact meaning of the verses. 

why you say 'rational' if one muslim would imply there's a mistake?  that's offensive right there.  why dont' you challange the quran if you think you're so 'rational'... hmmm? 

there's been a lot of ppl like you foggy so i'd give you some websites so that you may read abt them overwhelmingly successful debates over the veracity of the Quran and maybe heed a bit.

http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50016 - http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50016

http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm - http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

just google Ahmed Deedat and look up his books/talks and whatever interests you among the list of things he's talked about. 

you'll find these debates utterly fantastic and ingenious!!

Andalus wrote: The logic is based upon the view that one should have fear about writing Gd as God in terms of respect. Just like I do not write God, Allah, on paper out of fear that something may pollute it. Thats the logic.

o, i c said the blind man.

Andalus wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.  Yes. amalhayati wrote:  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)  Ok. amalhayati wrote:  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that. All opinions are welcome! amalhayati wrote:   What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?  habit alalhayati wrote:  where's the logic in that?   The logic is based upon the view that one should have fear about writing Gd as God in terms of respect. Just like I do not write God, Allah, on paper out of fear that something may pollute it. Thats the logic.

How can anything pollute Allah ?! Na'oozubillah !

Such logic should not come in your mind. These are the whispers of shaytan. Seek refuge in Allah from the outcast shaytan.

You should write the name Allah and use the name Allah everywhere ! Allah is The Most High ! Allah is free from all defects !

I'm trying my best to not be offensive, but come on...forums are for entertaining so the heat on the thread keeps you interested and logging back in, Fogtrik's are good?

What I mean, is that if muslims were rational, they could accept evolution?

Its a discussion, so my thoughts on mistakes are just that. Foggy,

Muhammad77 wrote: Andalus wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.  Yes. amalhayati wrote:  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)  Ok. amalhayati wrote:  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that. All opinions are welcome! amalhayati wrote:   What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?  habit alalhayati wrote:  where's the logic in that?   The logic is based upon the view that one should have fear about writing Gd as God in terms of respect. Just like I do not write God, Allah, on paper out of fear that something may pollute it. Thats the logic.   How can anything pollute Allah ?! Na'oozubillah !

Who has polluted Allah, and where is the pollution, and why is it pollution?

Such logic should not come in your mind.

Why not?

These are the whispers of shaytan. Seek refuge in Allah from the outcast shaytan.

When did I not have refuge in Allah and how do you know I need refuge in Allah?

You should write the name Allah and use the name Allah everywhere ! Allah is The Most High ! Allah is free from all defects !

I appreciate your opinion. I will take it under adivsement on writing Gd, or The Gd, or The God, or the arabic transliteration, Allah.

Now for my opinion.

We should take refuge in Gd, or Allah, from the Satan who tries to fill our minds with insignificant, and trivial matters so we do not waste our time pursuing such matters and that we use our time to pursue the real objects of our ibadah.

Brother, after you perform all of your prayers on time for years, and all of the sunnah prayers, and some of the extra fasting, then perhaps we can all focus on issues of spelling Gd or referring to Allah.

I think we have much more important items to bring up than how we spell Gd. It is not even an issue of aqiida.

peace 

Andalus wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Andalus wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.  Yes. amalhayati wrote:  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)  Ok. amalhayati wrote:  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that. All opinions are welcome! amalhayati wrote:   What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?  habit alalhayati wrote:  where's the logic in that?   The logic is based upon the view that one should have fear about writing Gd as God in terms of respect. Just like I do not write God, Allah, on paper out of fear that something may pollute it. Thats the logic.   How can anything pollute Allah ?! Na'oozubillah ! Who has polluted Allah, and where is the pollution, and why is it pollution? Such logic should not come in your mind. Why not? These are the whispers of shaytan. Seek refuge in Allah from the outcast shaytan. When did I not have refuge in Allah and how do you know I need refuge in Allah? You should write the name Allah and use the name Allah everywhere ! Allah is The Most High ! Allah is free from all defects !   I appreciate your opinion. I will take it under adivsement on writing Gd, or The Gd, or The God, or the arabic transliteration, Allah. Now for my opinion. We should take refuge in Gd, or Allah, from the Satan who tries to fill our minds with insignificant, and trivial matters so we do not waste our time pursuing such matters and that we use our time to pursue the real objects of our ibadah. Brother, after you perform all of your prayers on time for years, and all of the sunnah prayers, and some of the extra fasting, then perhaps we can all focus on issues of spelling Gd or referring to Allah. I think we have much more important items to bring up than how we spell Gd. It is not even an issue of aqiida. peace

Was Ayesha A Six-Year-Old Bride?

The Ancient Myth Exposed

A Christian friend asked me once, �Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?� I kept my silence. He continued, �If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?� I told him, �I don�t have an answer to your question at this time.� My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith. Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet�s marriage with Ayesha.

However, such an explanation would be gullible only for those who are naive enough to believe it. But unfortunately, I was not satisfied with the answer.

The Prophet was an exemplary man. All his actions were most virtuous so that we, Muslims, can emulate them. However, most people in our Islamic Center of Toledo, including me, would not think of betrothing our seven years daughter to a fifty-two year-old man. If a parent agrees to such a wedding, most people, if not all, would look down upon the father and the old husband.

In 1923, registrars of marriage in Egypt were instructed not to register and issue official certificates of marriage for brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years of age. Eight years later, the Law of the Organization and Procedure of Sheriah courts of 1931 consolidated the above provision by not hearing the marriage disputes involving brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years old. (Women in Muslim Family Law, John Esposito, 1982). It shows that even in the Muslim majority country of Egypt the child marriages are unacceptable.

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And he did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl. The age of Ayesha has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith (traditions of the Prophet) regarding Ayesha�s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn �Urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source

Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life.

Tehzibu�l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: �He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq� (Tehzi�bu�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: �I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq� (Tehzi�b u�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: �When he was old, Hisham�s memory suffered quite badly� (Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu�l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301).

CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham�s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha�s marriage and age are unreliable.

CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam:

• pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation
• 610 CE: First revelation
• 610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam
• 613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly.
• 615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia
• 616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam
• 620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet
• 622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina)
• 623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet

EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal

According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn �Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years.

However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: �All four of his [Abu Bakr�s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period� (Tarikhu�l-umam wa�l-mamlu�k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara�l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself.

CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha�s age.

EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima

According to Ibn Hajar, �Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old... she was five years older that Ayesha� (Al-isabah fi tamyizi�l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu�l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978).

If Ibn Hajar�s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha�s age at marriage would be 12 years.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha�s Age in relation to Asma�s Age

According to Abda�l-Rahman ibn abi zanna�d: �Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la�ma�l-nubala�, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu�assasatu�l-risalah, Beirut, 1992).

According to Ibn Kathir: �She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years� (Al-Bidayah wa�l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Kathir: �She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.� (Al-Bidayah wa�l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: �She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.� (Taqribu�l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi�l-nisa�, al-harfu�l-alif, Lucknow).

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah.

If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age.

Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda�l-Rahman ibn abi zanna�d, Ayesha�s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen?

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha�s age.

EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud

A narrative regarding Ayesha�s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu�l-jihad wa�l-siyar, Bab karahiyati�l-isti`anah fi�l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: �when we reached Shajarah�. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha�s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu�l-jihad wa�l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi�l-nisa� wa qitalihinna ma`a�lrijal): �Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].� Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr.

It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu�l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati�l-khandaq wa hiya�l-ahza�b): �Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.�

Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud

CONCLUSION: Ayesha�s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha�s age.

EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: �I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)� when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu�l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa�l-sa`atu adha� wa amarr).

Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane�s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet.

CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine.

EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet�s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: �You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)�. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha�s name.

All those who know the Arabic language are aware that the word bikr in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier, is jariyah. Bikr on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word �virgin� in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a �lady� (bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut).

CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is �adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.� Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage.

EVIDENCE #8. The Qur�anic Text

All Muslims agree that the Quran is the book of guidance. So, we need to seek the guidance from the Quran to clear the smoke and confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of Ayesha�s age at her marriage. Does the Quran allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age?

There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. There is a verse, however, that guides Muslims in their duty to raise an orphaned child. The Quran�s guidance on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children. The verse states: �And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...� (Quran, 4:5-6).

In the matter of children who have lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, (c) educate them, and (d) test them for maturity �until the age of marriage� before entrusting them with management of finances.

Here the Quranic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them.

In light of the above verses, no responsible Muslim would hand over financial management to a seven- or nine-year-old immature girl. If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage. Ibn Hambal (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p. 33 and 99) claims that nine-year-old Ayesha was rather more interested in playing with toy-horses than taking up the responsible task of a wife. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that AbuBakr, a great believer among Muslims, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to the 50-year-old Prophet. Equally difficult to imagine is that the Prophet would marry an immature seven-year-old girl.

Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is to educate them. Let us ask the question, �How many of us believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?� The answer is none. Logically, it is an impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage?

AbuBakr was a more judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Quran. He would not have married her to anyone. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to the Prophet, he would have rejected it outright because neither the Prophet nor AbuBakr would violate any clause in the Quran.

CONCLUSION: The marriage of Ayesha at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Quran. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth.

EVIDENCE #9: Consent in Marriage

A women must be consulted and must agree in order to make a marriage valid (Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p. 665). Islamically, credible permission from women is a prerequisite for a marriage to be valid.

By any stretch of the imagination, the permission given by an immature seven-year-old girl cannot be valid authorization for marriage.

It is inconceivable that AbuBakr, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a 50-year-old man.

Similarly, the Prophet would not have accepted the permission given by a girl who, according to the hadith of Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet.

CONCLUSION: The Prophet did not marry a seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of the valid permission clause of the Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, the Prophet married an intellectually and physically mature lady Ayesha.

SUMMARY:

It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while in Iraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha�s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha�s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha�s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities.

By:T.O. Shanavas is a physician based in Michigan.

ummm... sign*reader.  like you think we gonna read all that? 

why doncha write us a succinct synopsis of that there article mister.

forums are for entertaining

All nice Muse-lims Fogtricked.

I have been telling you all along what he wants, but all of us have to play scholars even with such . . . .

Sign*Reader
Senior Member


Brother, at times, we just stand by and watch even some of our best being unable to understand why the English say: Never cast thy pearls in front of the swine!

Somehow, you always appear out of the blue, for my rescue. I was also keeping quiet for I prefer not to take much notice of our poor Andalus' posts, in general. I had only wondered about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth.

There is sufficient neutral evidence to the effect that the Prophet was an exceptionally well tuned mind, with active wit and a fragrant sense of humour. He was well travelled for his day. He was definitely a bit more than just some charismatic man.

We don't need some Harvard professor to tell us that he was granted deep thought and some other obvious unusual powers and senses. He was sent to guide humanity at large, with a message that has, in fact, become more relevent, in this day of our great Tin Gods and Techno Plastic Temples.

He wasn't here for some entertainment.

I always smile and happily forgive the poor (but, of course, highly skilled) western mind when I watch its top concerns. You again don't have to run to some professor, just sit down and list worlds' top ten best selling websites.

There is also evidence that Ayesha was no ordinary woman, she was quite an activist, in her own right, in the early Islamic movement, both, before and after her marriage.

Anyway, let's look at it with some straight simple logic.

If half hearted, part time Muslims are so demonised, not just today, but through varius periods of history, THEN what share must be reserved for their supreme leader?

Try and work it out and let me know the proportion of that share? I am just trying to work out if Islamicity have been forced to accept some moderators, in these interesting times, from some very interesting agencies?

Assalam Aleikum.

Yes I agree with you that Muslims spend way too much time with details that are insignificant in light of the greater needs. It is a disease.

The contribution about Aisha's age is long and I have not the time or energy to go through it all. Hence I will make a brief reply.

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Andalus wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: hey Andalus, you used Gd to mean God.  Yes. amalhayati wrote:  i saw an article right it that way before. (An article not a blog where one could be more free in writing whichever way they want)  Ok. amalhayati wrote:  in my opinion it doesn't look good at all writing it like that. All opinions are welcome! amalhayati wrote:   What's up with abreviating such a short word anyways?  habit alalhayati wrote:  where's the logic in that?   The logic is based upon the view that one should have fear about writing Gd as God in terms of respect. Just like I do not write God, Allah, on paper out of fear that something may pollute it. Thats the logic.   How can anything pollute Allah ?! Na'oozubillah ! Who has polluted Allah, and where is the pollution, and why is it pollution? Such logic should not come in your mind. Why not? These are the whispers of shaytan. Seek refuge in Allah from the outcast shaytan. When did I not have refuge in Allah and how do you know I need refuge in Allah? You should write the name Allah and use the name Allah everywhere ! Allah is The Most High ! Allah is free from all defects !   I appreciate your opinion. I will take it under adivsement on writing Gd, or The Gd, or The God, or the arabic transliteration, Allah. Now for my opinion. We should take refuge in Gd, or Allah, from the Satan who tries to fill our minds with insignificant, and trivial matters so we do not waste our time pursuing such matters and that we use our time to pursue the real objects of our ibadah. Brother, after you perform all of your prayers on time for years, and all of the sunnah prayers, and some of the extra fasting, then perhaps we can all focus on issues of spelling Gd or referring to Allah. I think we have much more important items to bring up than how we spell Gd. It is not even an issue of aqiida. peace  I whole heartedly second your POV, the muslims are stuck with trivial than taking care of significant issues. Anyway I would like to quote a very poignant poem of Doctor Iqbal about the state of prayer of current muslims if you will permit!! of course a translation/ Any time Aisha's-ra age is brought up anywhere on the internet, it is more often than not is a Shiaspeak, doing their thing to mar the  Muslim's faith. I don't know how one can find about fogtrik!!! Fogtrik is here for entertainment and not for a discussion for knowledge. A reseach paper which is quite comprehensive on the subject as follows: Was Ayesha A Six-Year-Old Bride? The Ancient Myth Exposed A Christian friend asked me once, �Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?� I kept my silence. He continued, �If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?� I told him, �I don�t have an answer to your question at this time.� My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith. Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet�s marriage with Ayesha. However, such an explanation would be gullible only for those who are naive enough to believe it. But unfortunately, I was not satisfied with the answer. The Prophet was an exemplary man. All his actions were most virtuous so that we, Muslims, can emulate them. However, most people in our Islamic Center of Toledo, including me, would not think of betrothing our seven years daughter to a fifty-two year-old man. If a parent agrees to such a wedding, most people, if not all, would look down upon the father and the old husband. In 1923, registrars of marriage in Egypt were instructed not to register and issue official certificates of marriage for brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years of age. Eight years later, the Law of the Organization and Procedure of Sheriah courts of 1931 consolidated the above provision by not hearing the marriage disputes involving brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years old. (Women in Muslim Family Law, John Esposito, 1982). It shows that even in the Muslim majority country of Egypt the child marriages are unacceptable. So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And he did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl. The age of Ayesha has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith (traditions of the Prophet) regarding Ayesha�s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn �Urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

I have this well written reply to this piece. I could not imitate such a reply in such a fast time frame, so I will simply paste a section of it.

EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father.   First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported.  It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas.    The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life. Tehzibu�l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: �He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq� (Tehzi�bu�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50). It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: �I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq� (Tehzi�b u�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50). Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: �When he was old, Hisham�s memory suffered quite badly� (Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu�l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301). CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham�s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha�s marriage and age are unreliable. CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam: pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation 610 CE: First revelation 610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam 613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly. 615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia 616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam 620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet 622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina) 623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father.

Reply:
This isn't a very good start for Shanavas and those who've submitted to his arguments. "Most of the narratives", we are told, "are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah." Okay, let's accept for argument's sake that most of them have been reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah. Yet it is clear from Shanavas' own words that there are in fact other reports that aren't related through Hisham at all. So why doesn't Shanavas mention any of them? Shanavas all too quickly passes over evidence that refutes his thesis, and his supporters are more than willing to let him do so. They are equally to blame; guilty by association i'd say.

The fact that other narrators agree with Hisham in reporting the young age of Aisha (r) at the time of her marriage suffices to show grave defects in Shanavas' evidence #1 argument. His attempt therefore - as we shall see below - to discredit Hisham ibn `Urwah is both unnecessary and disingenuous. This is despite the fact that to suit his purpose Shanavas has grossly exaggerated Hisham's weakness as we shall see. Shanavas wants us to believe that Hisham was mistaken in his reporting of Aisha's (r) age. So what? Is he also going to condemn all the other narrators that agree with Hisham?

Hisham ibn `Urwah isn't alone in reporting Aisha's (r) young age at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (s). Here are some other narrators who report the same age that Hisham does:

Ibn Majah (d.273H) in his Sunan hadith collection, in the book of marriage, records it with his chain of transmission through Abu Ubaydah, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.

An-Nasa'i (d.303H) in his Sunan, the book of marriage, cites it with his chain of transmission through Muhammad ibn Abi Salmah, on the authority of Abdul Rahman, on the authority of Aisha (r).

An-Nasa'i also relates it through al-'Amash, on the authority of Ibrahim, on the authority of al-Aswad, from Aisha. (Cf. ibn al-Qayyim's [d.751H], Tahdhib as-Sunan #2122). Likewise, Hafidh al-Haythami (d.807H), in his Majma az-Zawa'id (#15297), cites it from al-Aswad from Aisha (r) as does Imam Ahmed (d.241H) in his Musnad collection, in the section on Aisha's (r) hadith.

At-Tabarani (d.360H) in his Mu'jam al-Kabir, in the chapter on the wives of the Prophet (s), has a number of chains of transmission for this report. Here are three of them:

- from Sa'd ibn Ibrahim, on the authority of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, from Aisha (r)

- from Sai'd ibn Abu 'Aruba, on the authority of Qatadah, re. Aisha

- from Abu Asamah, on the authority of al-'Ajlih, on the authority of ibn Abi Malayka, re. Aisha

None of the above routes of transmission go through Hisham ibn `Urwah yet they agree with him in narrating the young age of Aisha (r).

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported.

Reply:
It is in fact reported by more than just one, two or three people.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas.

Reply:
Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad reports the age from Aisha (r) as per at-Tabarani's chain above and he was one of the seven famous Imams of Madina.

The last chain cited from at-Tabarani's work is through ibn Abi Malayka who is another Madinan scholar and an eminently reliable hadith narrator. He met at least thirty of the Prophet's (s) Companions. (ibn Hajar, at-Taqrib #3454)

Yahya al-Lakhmi also reports it from Aisha (r), as per ibn Sa'd's (d.230H) Tabaqat al-Kubra, and he is another Madinan authority.

In Sahih Muslim (#1422) we have az-Zuhri citing this report from Hisham ibn 'Urwa. Az-Zuhri was a Madinan hadith master and it is safe to assume that he heard this report from Hisham in Madina prior to him moving to Iraq.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life.
Reply
No! Madinan authorities have also cited this hadith as have other non-Iraqi narrators through chains that don't mention Hisham at all.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
Tehzibu�l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: �He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq� (Tehzi�bu�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50)
Reply
This is nothing more than selective quoting. Shanavas picks out the quote that fits his purpose and avoids mentioning the authorities who declared Hisham's hadith as perfectly reliable. It's funny how under evidence #4 Shanavas concludes that "Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha's age" yet here we find him unashamedly citing from ibn Hajar's work simply because it suits his argument.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: �I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq� (Tehzi�b u�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).
Reply
Yes, but Hisham's report about Aisha's age wasn't just reported through Iraqis.

In any case, Yaqub ibn Shaibah's and Malik's criticism of Hisham is based on nothing more than the fact that Hisham towards the end of his life no longer use the phrase "narrated to me" but would say "My father, from Aisha" for the sake of brevity - the difference between these two phrases may not be immediately obvious but they do represent technical differences from the standpoint of hadith science. Consequently, ibn Hajar - who is Shanavas' reference for this criticism - himself rejected the objection as negligible, saying: "It was clear enough to the Iraqis that he did not narrate from his father other than what he'd directly heard from him."

Unfortunately, Shanavas completely fails to mention that this particular criticism had been dismissed centuries ago by the very authority that he pointed his readers to.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: �When he was old, Hisham�s memory suffered quite badly� (Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu�l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301).
Reply
Now Shanavas switches to selectively quoting from adh-Dhahabi's work al-Mizan al-I'tidal. Shanavas quotes the words "When he was old, Hisham�s memory suffered quite badly" whereas what adh-Dhababi actually says is that his "memory diminished". Memory normally diminishes in old age, doesn't it? But adh-Dhahabi rightly lambastes those who linger on the possibility that Hisham might have forgotten things towards the end of his life. He explicitly declares that Hisham:

"Never became senile at all! No attention is paid to the claim of Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattaan that he (Hisham)... became senile and (that his ability) changed... So stop fumbling and refrain from mixing the firm Imams with the weak and senile narrators... may Allah console us from you, Ibn al-Qattan, and also from the claim of Abdul Rahman ibn Khirash that Malik was not pleased with him (Hisham) and that he objected to his hadiths to the people of Iraq!" (adh-Dhahabi, al-Mizan #9233).

Again, Shanavas, for reasons best known to him, doesn't bother to tell his readers any of this. Hisham related the same hadith in Madina and in Iraq, other Madinan narrators report the same hadith independent of Hisham, and they all agree on Aisha's (r) young age. Adh-Dhahabi said: "His memory diminished in old age, so what?" (ibid). Exactly, so what? His reporting of this hadith was unaffected.

Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
CONCLUSION #1:

Based on these references, Hisham�s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha�s marriage and age are unreliable.

I hardly think so!

Wassalam
Iqbal
Link to material:

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-73057.html - http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-73057.html

Sign*Reader,

You read the sign well, brother!  Thanks.

BR & Salaams

BMZ

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote:   Sorry folks, I'll read all the verse from the sections that I found and post again, once I've read them in their context. There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction? Kind Regards,   True! You said true= fact or =fiction

Aisha was betrothed to the Prophet (saw) at 6, and married at 9.

Whisper wrote: Sign*Reader Senior Member Brother, at times, we just stand by and watch even some of our best being unable to understand why the English say: Never cast thy pearls in front of the swine!

And the Americans say, 

Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold. -Mark Twain.

So I have learned not to expect anything of serious value from your contributions.

Somehow, you always appear out of the blue, for my rescue. I was also keeping quiet for I prefer not to take much notice of our poor Andalus' posts, in general. I had only wondered about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth.

Your two comments (snide remarks about me) are noted. Please be aware. If you have problems with me, and if you want to discuss it rationally, then that is fine. If you want to take cheap shots when you feel the moment moves you, then there is a problem. Your snide remarks toward me as moderator will not be tolerated. I do not want to see your usual long winded rant about the matter. I have made myself and my position extremely clear.  

Whisper wrote: Sign*Reader Senior Member Brother, at times, we just stand by and watch even some of our best being unable to understand why the English say: Never cast thy pearls in front of the swine! Somehow, you always appear out of the blue, for my rescue. I was also keeping quiet for I prefer not to take much notice of our poor Andalus' posts, in general. I had only wondered about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth. There is sufficient neutral evidence to the effect that the Prophet was an exceptionally well tuned mind, with active wit and a fragrant sense of humour. He was well travelled for his day. He was definitely a bit more than just some charismatic man. We don't need some Harvard professor to tell us that he was granted deep thought and some other obvious unusual powers and senses. He was sent to guide humanity at large, with a message that has, in fact, become more relevent, in this day of our great Tin Gods and Techno Plastic Temples. He wasn't here for some entertainment. I always smile and happily forgive the poor (but, of course, highly skilled) western mind when I watch its top concerns. You again don't have to run to some professor, just sit down and list worlds' top ten best selling websites. There is also evidence that Ayesha was no ordinary woman, she was quite an activist, in her own right, in the early Islamic movement, both, before and after her marriage. Anyway, let's look at it with some straight simple logic. If half hearted, part time Muslims are so demonised, not just today, but through varius periods of history, THEN what share must be reserved for their supreme leader? Try and work it out and let me know the proportion of that share? I am just trying to work out if Islamicity have been forced to accept some moderators, in these interesting times, from some very interesting agencies?

Assalamu Alaikum,

Whisper,

You know very well that personal attack of any form will not be tolerated. On one hand you describe the troubled situation that Muslims are going through around the world, and I pray to Allah that things get better for us, on other hand, you target fellow Muslims, such as moderators on this site. Please comply with guidelines. Yes, this is warning

I hope that this reminder will not be necessary in the future.

Peace

Assalam Aleikum Br.

I hope you will not mind if I comment, simply to allow for the other perspective to be shown. Thank you.

bmzsp wrote: fogtrick, From you: "There is alot know about the early life of Muhammad, for example. He married a 9 year old call Aisha and had sex with her? Is this fact or fiction?" First, he did not marry Aisha in his early life because she would not have been born and if she had, then she must have been cutting her teeth. Second, there is only one hadith from one person, I think it is Hisham, on this subject and that is also not reliable. Perhaps, you would like to think hard that Aisha narrated many ahaadith and there is not a single hadith quoted by her saying when was she married. Aisha, Prophet and her father and many Companions of the prophet would have known when and at what age did she get married and they did not talk about that. Nobody in that culture asked such silly questions.

Actually brother, there were other narrators, reliable narrators, which places the hadith in the category og Sahih.

Also, it was not a consensus that "Hisham" was completely unreliable.

Aisha was present at the Battle of Badr, helping people with water and tending to those injured. No person below fourteen was allowed by Prophet to take part in battles. Boys below 14 were sent home. Aisha was not married to him at that time. So, Prophet must have married her when she was 15-18.

This is an explanation by Shaikh Gabriel Haddad:

First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

This is the link.

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004861.aspx - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004861.aspx

The Arabs of the 7th Century were living in a modern time compared with the people who lived in the First Century.  They had morals, values, customs and culture. If you have any knowledge about the history and culture of Arabs and various tribes in the region, you will know that they were not giving away their daughters to men at the age of 3-12.  If you don't know ask the US Military in Iraq about the tribes and their culture. They would know. Kinder Regards, BMZ

 

- Abu Tughlub ibn Hamdan married the daughter of `Izz al-Dawla Bakhtyar when she was three and paid a dowry of 100,000 dinars. This took place in Safar 360 H. (Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil).

- Al-Shafi`i in al-Umm reported that he saw countless examples of nine-year old pubescent girls in Yemen. Al-Bayhaqi also narrates it from him in the Sunan al-Kubra as does al-Dhahabi in the Siyar.

- Al-Bayhaqi narrated with his chains in his Sunan al-Kubra no less than three examples of Muslim wives that gave birth at age nine or ten.

- Hisham ibn `Urwa himself (whom the objector claims to know enough to forward the most barefaced judgments on his reliability) married Fatima bint al-Mundhir when she was nine years old (al-Muntazam and Tarikh Baghdad).

- Our liege-lord `Umar married Umm Kulthum the daughter of `Ali and Fatima at a similar age per `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and others.

- And our Mother `Aisha herself was first almost betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut`im before her father dropped that option when he received word from the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless and greet him and be well-pleased with them.

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004861.aspx - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004861.aspx

So there are many examples of the practice in semitic culture.

Take care Br.

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

Assalamu Alaikum,

Whisper,

You know very well that personal attack of any form will not be tolerated. On one hand you describe the troubled situation that Muslims are going through around the world, and I pray to Allah that things get better for us, on other hand, you target fellow Muslims, such as moderators on this site. Please comply with guidelines. Yes, this is warning

I hope that this reminder will not be necessary in the future.

Peace

Sorry, brother, it's no personal attack, but quite a seasoned opinion, which I am supposed to air in case I feel, sense or vibe something about someone in constant contact with us - in this case it happens to be your Neo Moderator.

Is it also expected of Moderators to behave?

Were I the only one who has smelt his fragrance then I would have definitely thought twice about this situation.

I find it difficult to respect someone who fails to respect mother's sanctity or even motherhood for that matter.

You could save your warning. I will be posting my farewell to Islamicity after Maghreb today.

Thanks.

Whisper wrote: Assalamu Alaikum, Whisper, You know very well that personal attack of any form will not be tolerated. On one hand you describe the troubled situation that Muslims are going through around the world, and I pray to Allah that things get better for us, on other hand, you target fellow Muslims, such as moderators on this site. Please comply with guidelines. Yes, this is warning I hope that this reminder will not be necessary in the future. Peace Sorry, brother, it's no personal attack, but quite a seasoned opinion, which I am supposed to air in case I feel, sense or vibe something about someone in constant contact with us - in this case it happens to be your Neo Moderator. Is it also expected of Moderators to behave? Were I the only one who has smelt his fragrance then I would have definitely thought twice about this situation. I find it difficult to respect someone who fails to respect mother's sanctity or even motherhood for that matter. You could save your warning. I will be posting my farewell to Islamicity after Maghreb today. Thanks.

Please support your accusation about my views on motherhood.

I expect you to back up your insults. If you cannot back this up, then you are slandering me. You do know what happens to those who slander yes?

I expect you to back up your insults.

My friend, I have no joy in insulting you or anyone else for that matter. I hold the RIGHT to post my observations EXACTLY in the same way as you can post: My observations about Cindy are based upon observations.

I am extremely sorry, but I find it difficult to give respect to anyone, not just you, who is unable to give respect readily - specially to a woman who has lost a son in a dodgy, illegitimate and a criminal war!

Sir, I follow my vibes and these haven't let me down in my entire life. I won't go into how this gift came about, firstly, out of sheer modsty and, secondly, for the fact that you are prone to file deeper things of life under "religious trivia".

Kindly, guide me how I must behave if I scent a Trojan Horse in our midst? And, just because of your own reflections.

It's now after Maghreb and I have to thank my friends, on this board, for allowing me to share such a journey with them.

Thank you and wish you the best of luck.

I have waited exactly three days to see if you had the courage to respond to my above post, with some Logic Software. But the general consensus, at this board, seems to be right that you disappear when something substantial is posted.

Andalus Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 284

Posted: 23 August 2006 at 11:52pm | IP Logged http://www.islamicity.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=61337&TPN=7"> Whisper wrote: Sign*Reader Senior Member Brother, at times, we just stand by and watch even some of our best being unable to understand why the English say: Never cast thy pearls in front of the swine! And the Americans say,  Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold. -Mark Twain. So I have learned not to expect anything of serious value from your contributions. Kindly, don't flatter yourself. Did you initiate this string or the matter about Ayesha's (r) age? A proper moderator would have been able to work out where a comment is aimed. My comment was AND STILL REMAINS AIMED AT FOGTRIK. Quote: Somehow, you always appear out of the blue, for my rescue. I was also keeping quiet for I prefer not to take much notice of our poor Andalus' posts, in general. I had only wondered about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth. Your two comments (snide remarks about me) are noted. Please be aware. If you have problems with me, and if you want to discuss it rationally, then that is fine. If you want to take cheap shots when you feel the moment moves you, then there is a problem. Your snide remarks toward me as moderator will not be tolerated. I do not want to see your usual long winded rant about the matter. I have made myself and my position extremely clear.  Kindly, keep noting as many remarks you may desire. Yes, I do wonder about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth. I have made my position absolutely clear that it's My Observation and I hold exactly the same rights to post my observations as you do. Can you understand that? Or do some of us need to moderate you a little?

Whisper wrote: I have waited exactly three days to see if you had the courage to respond to my above post, with some Logic Software. But the general consensus, at this board, seems to be right that you disappear when something substantial is posted.

I am sorry, but I must have missed the substance you speak of. Perhaps it is buried in your Queen like drama. Waiting for three days? I though you were leaving? And you were waiting? This is too funny. 

No, neither did you post anything of substance, nor do you follow through with anything you say.

You are a waste of time. I simply felt I had washed my hands of you, as you will never give a real discourse, and I assumed you had no real intention to have a serious discussion given the quality of the material you gave, and your dramatic, Oscar winning performance of your empty threats to leave. I was unable to find anything but drama, whining, and trivial, irrelevant quibbling. So what did you want me to respond to exactly?

whisper wrote:   Andalus Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 284 Posted: 23 August 2006 at 11:52pm | IP Logged http://www.islamicity.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=61337&TPN=7"> Whisper wrote: Sign*Reader Senior Member Brother, at times, we just stand by and watch even some of our best being unable to understand why the English say: Never cast thy pearls in front of the swine! And the Americans say,  Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold. -Mark Twain. So I have learned not to expect anything of serious value from your contributions. Kindly, don't flatter yourself. Did you initiate this string or the matter about Ayesha's (r) age? Did I initiate the string? Do you really need me to reply or are you not capable of reading the names of those who contribute? Seriously. What you are going on about? whisper wrote: A proper moderator would have been able to work out where a comment is aimed. My comment was AND STILL REMAINS AIMED AT FOGTRIK. They were also aimed at me, out of the blue. You are trying to quibble again.   whisper wrote: Quote: Somehow, you always appear out of the blue, for my rescue. I was also keeping quiet for I prefer not to take much notice of our poor Andalus' posts, in general. I had only wondered about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth. Your two comments (snide remarks about me) are noted. Please be aware. If you have problems with me, and if you want to discuss it rationally, then that is fine. If you want to take cheap shots when you feel the moment moves you, then there is a problem. Your snide remarks toward me as moderator will not be tolerated. I do not want to see your usual long winded rant about the matter. I have made myself and my position extremely clear.  Kindly, keep noting as many remarks you may desire. Yes, I do wonder about Islamicity's criteria of selection when their moderator had readily granted his seal of affirmation to this spin - it's no myth. It is only a fact in your extremely small, and narrow world. And you have been warned about your remarks regarding moderation and the methods for choosing them. I do not care what you have dreamt up and convinced yourself of. You can live in your delusion all you want and believe what you want, the fact remains, you have been warned. That's all there is to the matter. whisper wrote: I have made my position absolutely clear that it's My Observation and I hold exactly the same rights to post my observations as you do. Ah. Problems in critical thinking. I will simplify this for you. My comments about Cindy Sheehan is not the same as your remarks about moderation, how they are chosen, and your low regard for me. You may feel the way you do, but when you go out of your way to take shots at one of us, and the process of choosing them (now you are trying to publicly discredit admin and the other moderators), this is not the same thing in anyway to my views on Cindy Sheehan. This is a "false" analogy. To try and equate them is simply your attempt at using ignorance to justify your desire to take shots at me as moderator. Let me make it clear. The two are not the same, and will not allow you to get away with insulting moderators. Is that clear?   whisper wrote:   Can you understand that? Or do some of us need to moderate you a little?

No I do not. The rational behind your attempt at a false analogy in order for you to excuse yourself cannot be understood because it makes no sense. I do understand your desire to obfuscate. That much is clear.

You have been warned, and we are all moderated, inculding you.

I though you were leaving?

Some dreams do take a while to come true. 

Sir, I would have gone by now, I am the last person to hold any need, desire or the taste for staying in any infested place. But, I had to stay and clear a que of some very interesting PMs, from your other admirers since declaring my intention to Ban Myself from Islamicity.

No need to panic, I will soon grant you your great wish, I don't have to stay to expose you, in time, you will do that for me.

How nice. Are you using these double bold letters, to put a bit of power in your words? Or just to scare me?

My comment was AND STILL REMAINS AIMED AT FOGTRIK. They were also aimed at me, out of the blue.

You are welcome to share it with FogTrik if you insist. Any proper moderator would see that I am using "my comment" and he wouldn't have used They were.

the fact remains, you have been warned. That's all there is to the matter.

Thank goodness, I have seen, known and lived under a few tinpot dictators in my life. Had I not seen the reality fo such peoples' potence, I would have been shivering by now and even may have gone into hiding since your warning.

"thats all there is to the matter" is mere wishful thinking on your part. What grants you the divine right to disinform people in a public forum and then go scotfree? That click and paste quote from poor Aristotle?

and will not allow you to get away with insulting moderators.

What Moderators have I insulted?

I am taking just ONE Neo Moderator to task. Let me assure you in the gentlest possible way, Sir, that each member on this board holds all the rights to question anyone, including a moderator.

No one ever comes to hold any divine rights. A very simple tip: even amoderator has to earn respect, in any public forum, in his or her own right.

Demand respect and see how much respect you get from around here.

The two are not the same,

The basic principle is exactly the same. Are you trying to tell us that it's okay to slander Cindy Sheehan only because she is not a Muslim woman? But some tinpot moderator is somehow the only untouchable thing in our world?

And, it's also okay to jump in a "Yes, True" in a slanderous string? I don't need any long explanation of what you meant, I can only read what you posted.

In that particular post, it came as an affirmation. I would have forgotten about it if it weren't from a Moderator.

We expect a moderator to be more responsible than other posters. Learn your responsibility and earn your respect instead of claiming it through proclamations.

The rational behind your attempt at a false analogy in order for you to excuse yourself

I hold no need at all to "attempt" at anything leave aside to excuse myself from something. You don't know me at all. I have been at Islamicity for 5 years plus. (You are so predictable, I know, you will point out my joining date - I had lost my "Khanzadeh" password in software crash and I rejoined after attempts at obtaining it) Why should I excuse myself? From what? Your fear? What can you do to me? Take my life?

You can't even ban me. I am banning myself from a place with someone like you in it.

If you had any sense at all you would look around and attempt to find out why someone (or, in fact, quite a few someones) should begin to question the criteria of Islamicity moderator selection.

Do I find any joy in that? Why have I not questioned it through all these five years? I don't know you personally, I have nothing against you other than your attitude and your utter ignorance. You may be a great pleasure some Richard Perl or David Frum, you are no pleasure for us.

It might help you just to take a look at your own self, once in a while.

Good luck and thank you. When is the firing squade coming?

You have been warned against attacking moderators (and users). This is your last and final warning. This place is for peaceful discussions. ANYBODY breaking the guidelines will face the consequences. This is your last chance.
Sister Amah, when did I last attack a moderator? Could you please quote one instance before this one?

I am not insulting anyone at all. Even a moderator has to earn his own respect. No one holds any divine rights.

About my leaving, please read: "I am Banning Whisper".

I hope your Neo Moderator helps in keeping it peaceful, it would be a task with his attitude.

My best and final regards.

Whisper wrote: I though you were leaving? Some dreams do take a while to come true.  Sir, I would have gone by now, I am the last person to hold any need, desire or the taste for staying in any infested place. But, I had to stay and clear a que of some very interesting PMs, from your other admirers since declaring my intention to Ban Myself from Islamicity.

I am sorry you are delusional. You hold yourself to high. Really. I have yet to find one serious contribution by you. Let me give you advice: It is OK that you talk to yourself and tell yourself how great you are and feel the need to affirm yourself, just becareful when you begin to answer yourself. 

whisper wrote: No need to panic, I will soon grant you your great wish, I don't have to stay to expose you, in time, you will do that for me.

More queen like drama. Stop threatening to expose me and just do it. The truth is, you are all talk. You have been making this claim a few times, and all you do is respond with more dribble. Lets be honest, your true ability is to talk people to death with nonsense until people become tired from you and desire peace so much that they just stop replying. Then you can look in a mirror and tell yourself how great you are. Its actually very funny. You talk people into submission. 

whisper wrote:   How nice. Are you using these double bold letters, to put a bit of power in your words? Or just to scare me?

Actually no. I was not going to say anything since you already look silly enough. I was not going to mention your laziness in how you format a thread, but since you have decided to draw a completely false and juvenile (are these "bold" letter ok?) point, I will make mention of it!

Not only do you try and talk people to death with silly editorials that you demand total allegiance to or else the wrath of more of your ad nauseam blithering and belligerent tautoligical dribble until the recipient submits or becomes to ill to continue, but you lack ability to properly edit your replies in a courteous fashion making it time consuming to write back in return. The "double bold" was due to your short comings and my lack of time to mess with it.   

whisper wrote: My comment was AND STILL REMAINS AIMED AT FOGTRIK. They were also aimed at me, out of the blue. You are welcome to share it with FogTrik if you insist. Any proper moderator would see that I am using "my comment" and he wouldn't have used They were.

More irrelevant blithering. You can whine and hide behind such juvenile strawmen about grammer nuances (such gimmicks are the fodder of the desperate), the point is, your post insulted me also. You can try and find irrelevant grammer errors all you want. The fact still remains. "They were" implies that there is more than one comment. I though you might have the ability to figure out such a basic notion. I am sorry. I will connect the dots for you next time.   

whisper wrote: the fact remains, you have been warned. That's all there is to the matter. Thank goodness, I have seen, known and lived under a few tinpot dictators in my life. Had I not seen the reality fo such peoples' potence, I would have been shivering by now and even may have gone into hiding since your warning.

And more endless diatribe. While you are going on about your life trying to appeal to emotion, try looking in the mirror and contemplating your participation. It seems that you have a love for dictators. You are nothing more than a rhetorical thug. You abuse anyone who diagress with you. You try with all of your might to stifle any dessent through your ad nauseam and insulting replies. You cannot stand that someone thinks you are wrong. You lash out with vile disgust. You condescendingly place your pitty if they happen to be from the west. Your abusive attitude and bellicose nature are the true signs of s despot. Yes, I can tell you have lived under dictators, and you have learned a great deal from them. So while you are trying to point your finger at me and accuse me of being a dictator, one only has to look through the sections in this forum that you graviate to, and watch how you molest all boundaries of hypocrisy. You cannot even agree to disagree. I even let you have the last word in the Cindy Sheehan thread, because there was no more benefit for either of us to continue. This was not good enough for you. Right? How dare that someone does not agree with you. You are such a despot, you had to fire off an insult, out of the blue, in a different thread at me! Seriously. How small and petty is that whisper? How egotistical and despotic is that? So much for the charade you put here about how refined you are. 

You are a hypocrit.

whisper wrote:   "thats all there is to the matter" is mere wishful thinking on your part. What grants you the divine right to disinform people in a public forum and then go scotfree? That click and paste quote from poor Aristotle?

Another deflection from the great and refined whisper. It is not a matter of divine rights, nor did I claim to have them. Your attempt to make an emotional appeal concerning a charge that is simply false is more of your cheap games. Lets stick to the facts. You made an insult at a moderator that was not even on topic with the thread. You cannot do this anywhere you go. Your desire to call it a "seasoned observation" is a desperate response. You can call it anything you like. Here it is called an insult at moderation. Thats it.

What gives me the right to call it an insult? The staff who wrote the rules and makes that judgement. 

whisper wrote:   and will not allow you to get away with insulting moderators. What Moderators have I insulted? I am taking just ONE Neo Moderator to task. Let me assure you in the gentlest possible way, Sir, that each member on this board holds all the rights to question anyone, including a moderator.

You insult the staff when you question the methods used here to select moderators. That is a direct insult to admin. Try cracking open a critical thinking book.

whisper wrote: No one ever comes to hold any divine rights. A very simple tip: even amoderator has to earn respect, in any public forum, in his or her own right.

Baseless assertion.

whisper wrote: Demand respect and see how much respect you get from around here.

Are you blind whisper? Are you having comprehension problems? Are you overlooking what I have said or not said due to your desire to nit pick through grammer nuances?

Stay focused: I do not want anything from you. I do not care if you respect me or not. Clear? I do not hate you, nor do I like you, I am neutral.

whisper wrote: The two are not the same, The basic principle is exactly the same. Are you trying to tell us that it's okay to slander Cindy Sheehan only because she is not a Muslim woman? But some tinpot moderator is somehow the only untouchable thing in our world?

No, they are very different.

No, I am not saying it is ok to slander anyone. You are saying that if I do not agree with you, then it is ok to insult me out of the blue.

CIndy Sheehan is a nut. Thats what I think. I have my reasons. I am sorry that as a Muslim, you have so few great figures in your life that you feel you must give her any serious attention to a fringe wing nut job. 

Your argument for being able to cross topics and threads and hurl an insult at me as a moderator has numerous flaws, and is unrealistic.

Let me connect the dots:

What you are suggesting is that when I, as a moderator, disagree with you, or your view, that you then have the right, because I have disagreed with you, to insult me, with an insult irrelevant to the topic that I disagreed with you about, in a thread that has nothing to do with the topic I disagreed with you on.

Now you are trying to be "clever", and equate my opinion of Cindy, as a slander, and then declare you should be able to have the right to "slander" me,.

This fails due to the erroneous nature of your thinking. It is simply convoluted.

If we follow your twisted scheme, then this forum should shut down as no one would be able to disagree without someone asserting the disagreement as an insult or slander to the point of topic, giving freedoms to hurl insults at the other when the need comes about.

If you truly cannot see the incoherence in your position, then you are lost.

whisper wrote:   How is an off the wall insult to me as moderator have any conenction to what I said in the Sheehan threr  And, it's also okay to jump in a "Yes, True" in a slanderous string? I don't need any long explanation of what you meant, I can only read what you posted.

Thats a real nice deflection whisper. Masterful!

whisper wrote:   In that particular post, it came as an affirmation. I would have forgotten about it if it weren't from a Moderator. We expect a moderator to be more responsible than other posters. Learn your responsibility and earn your respect instead of claiming it through proclamations.

More convoluted nonsense.

And again, I have never asked you for your respect. I simply do not care.  

whisper wrote: You rational behind your attempt at a false analogy in order for you to excuse yourself I hold no need at all to "attempt" at anything leave aside to excuse myself from something.

You always hide. You hide behind your charade of wordly sophistication. You hide behind little games of sematics and deflections, you hide behind insults and your infated ego. You hide all the time.

whisper wrote: You don't know me at all. I have been at Islamicity for 5 years plus.

I know your pattern of behavior. Thats sufficient.

whisper wrote:    (You are so predictable, I know, you will point out my joining date - I had lost my "Khanzadeh" password in software crash and I rejoined after attempts at obtaining it)

 I am not the one to derail a thread by trying to make points of grammer nuances and such trivial nonsense. No Whisper, that is only something you would look at and assume is a mistake. I give people, including you, the benefit of the doubt, and I know not to conclude that because your date is one thing, that it does not necessarily imply that you are lying.

whisper wrote:    Why should I excuse myself? From what? Your fear? What can you do to me? Take my life?

Your drama is taking my life.  

whisper wrote: You can't even ban me. I am banning myself from a place with someone like you in it.

When did I claim that I would ban you? More drama. Have you ever thought about taking up a position of writer for a novela?

And FYI. No one is banned unless it has been discussed (not that I ever said I was banning you).

If you continue to go against the guidlines of moderation, then you will be banned, just as I would be banned.

Bann yourself? This is your second threat of leaving.

whisper wrote: If you had any sense at all you would look around and attempt to find out why someone (or, in fact, quite a few someones) should begin to question the criteria of Islamicity moderator selection.

 Everyone has opinions and likes and dislikes. Unless it is a solid charge, I do not care. It is that simple. 

You are free to rant and have had many freedoms here. For the sake of reality, you have nothing to complain about.

The truth is, your ego is bruised. Why else would you have the passion to create a mountain from a mole hill, cross forum sections to hurl an insult that stems from an irrelevant thread and the insult was not even relevant to the thread where I disagreed with you. How crazy is that? Seriously. 

whisper wrote:   Do I find any joy in that?

In wasting my time hashing over your mangled drama?

whisper wrote:  Why have I not questioned it through all these five years?

Why is it that at this point, you have given me no reason to care? The mystery of the internet. Lets contemplate.

whisper wrote:  I don't know you personally, I have nothing against you other than your attitude and your utter ignorance. You may be a great pleasure some Richard Perl or David Frum, you are no pleasure for us.   It might help you just to take a look at your own self, once in a while. Good luck and thank you. When is the firing squade coming?

Thank you for your observations and I will put them under advisement.

ummmm.. andalus, are you still aruguing here?   you're arguing with nobody because he left a loong time ago.

I don't see how you moderators are keeping things moderate in here.  it seems like all you guys look for is something negative to pounce on and ban it.  that's not the only role of a moderator you know. 

moderators let me remind you also tend to 'moderate' a tense situaion.  to diffuse an argument, to ballance out an awkward situation.... need i say more?

if you had kept the argument 'moderate' and not exacerbate the situaiton by proving yourself correct or disproving the other, you would have diffused the tension in the thread. your actions have produced the opposite of your role mister.  

and now we lost a close, dedicated member that has been here longer than you have in islamicity forums.

assalam,

amalhayati2 wrote: ummmm.. andalus, are you still aruguing here?   you're arguing with nobody because he left a loong time ago.

No, I aruged a couple of days ago. And he claimed to have left even longer ago, but did not. After promising to leave the first time, I ignored his other final post, and then he was angry that I ignored it.

I don't see how you moderators are keeping things moderate in here.  it seems like all you guys look for is something negative to pounce on and ban it.  that's not the only role of a moderator you know.

He was not banned. He was given a warning.

moderators let me remind you also tend to 'moderate' a tense situaion.  to diffuse an argument, to ballance out an awkward situation.... need i say more?

 Actually you do. What does that have to do with this thread?

if you had kept the argument 'moderate' and not exacerbate the situaiton by proving yourself correct or disproving the other, you would have diffused the tension in the thread. your actions have produced the opposite of your role mister.

I am a moderator, and also a participant. I am not just part of the background. Nothing I have done has given an opposite "role".

and now we lost a close, dedicated member that has been here longer than you have in islamicity forums. assalam,

He left on his own. It is that simple. He was not "picked on",nor did we go out of our way to censor him. He went out of his way to insult me as moderator. I do not mind when someone takes a swipe at me during a heated thread. Such things happen. He did such in another thread, and I even gave him the "last word". That was not enough, so he decided to insult me as a moderator in a different thread, weeks after the fact. That is uncalled for. No one, in any forum, will be given such a "right". No one banned him, or was going to ban him. He was only warned. Do not blame me for his leaving on his own, blame him and his pride. He wanted to have a right that no one can pissible possess.

I am sorry if I have offended you.

Assalam Aleikum

Pity someone left. Its not healthy to take forums so seriously?

Foggy