Health Awareness

People have just learned more diplomatic ways of saying.I am done sucking your positive energy.Be gone.😂🤣🤣

How old was Aisha when she married the prophet Muhammad? How old were his other wives when they got married to him?
Do you believe Aisha bint Abi Bakr was really 9 years old when she married prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?
Of all the accusations levelled against prophet Muhammad, the most favorite one of his critics is the accusation of “pedophilia”. They claim he married a 9-year-old child Aisha, when he was like 50. Major buzzkill, right? It's the haters way of dissing the Prophet's authority as a moral guide and, of course, it drives Muslims up the wall (I ll explain why, later). So, haters and bigots have a field day when they play “Aisha's marital age” card in a debate.

What is the source of their accusation? The famous 9th century Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, commonly referred to as Imam al-Bukhari (died. 870 CE) mentioned a Hadith in his collection wherein Aisha narrated that Prophet Muhammad married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 5, book 58, number 234).

Before we delve deeper into the discussion on this topic, it is very important to bear in mind that Imam al-Bukhari wrote his Hadith compilation (a.k.a. Sahih al-Bukhari) around 200 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. His compilation, like many other Hadith compilations, do not qualify as contemporary historical record of the life and times of prophet Muhammad. There are no direct historical evidences to show that Aisha was a child of 6 years when she was married to Muhammad, and 9 years when her marriage was consummated.

The age of Aisha mentioned in aforementioned hadith is inconsistent with known historical facts and it fails the test of historical-critical analysis. Here, I provide three major arguments to support the case that the myth of Prophet's marriage with under-age Aisha was most likely invented in eighth-century Iraq and later back-projected onto the life story of Muhammad.

Firstly, the Qur'an (primary source and contemporary historical record of the time of prophet Muhammad and of the earliest known formative period of Islam) does not mention anything about Aisha being a child or an “under-age” girl at the time of her marriage with Prophet Muhammad. The Quran indicates that there is an “age of marriage”(4:6) in principle, when both consenting partners are mature physically and mentally to enter into the legal contract (“covenant”) of marriage (4:21). There is no reason why Prophet Muhammad would go against such standards set in the Quran in case of his marriage with Aisha (irrespective of whether you believe that Quran is the Word of God or a product of Prophet’s unconscious mind or the collective unconscious).

Secondly, there is serious problem with the hadith of Aisha's under-age marriage with the Prophet, when subjected to historical-critical analysis. The problem starts with the fact that there was one narrator Hishām ibn ʿUrwa from whom this particular hadith originated. He narrated it when he was in Iraq, between the years 754 and 765 CE. Not only would this put the circulation of this report almost a century and a half after the events it purports to describe, but it would also mean that Hishām dropped this tale in the altogether different environment of Iraq, almost 1,000 miles away from the Arabian city of Medina (where the marriage would have taken place). Sketchy, isn't it? Due to this obvious reason, this particular hadith cannot be considered a reliable source of information about Aisha's marriage, by any stretch of imagination.

From this perspective, historian Dr. Joshua Little of University of Oxford has recently published a detailed in-depth research on the Hadith of Aisha's marital age, which has been further confirmed and supported by Dr. Javad T. Hashmi of University of Harvard. I would strongly recommend it for further reading on this topic.

Dr. Joshua Little explains that the Aisha's marital age reports are absent in the earliest Islamic sources, including in certain key biographical and legal works. Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest known biographer, mentioned nothing about Aisha’s age at marriage(the detail was, however, added later by the historian Ibn Hisham). The marital age hadith is absent from the earliest Medinan legal collections, including Imam Malik’s al-Muwatta, even though the latter cites Hisham Ibn Urwa dozens of times (same narrator whom I mentioned earlier in my answer). To quote Joshua Little, “The failure of Malik to cite this hadith suggests not merely that Malik rejected it, but that it was not circulating in Medina at that time. This is especially given that the marital-age hadith has important legal ramifications, and thus would surely have demanded inclusion into a dedicated Madinan collection of Madinan legal Hadith.” Joshua Little further writes that, the earliest Maliki work to cite any version of the marital age hadith appeared “nearly three centuries after the hadith’s initial mass-dissemination in Iraq.” The news about early marriage of Aisha is absent from key early sources in Medina where the event would have taken place. Using this argument from silence, it can be concluded that “this was a story invented in eighth-century Iraq and only later back-projected onto the life story of Muhammad”.

The Third argument is that the idea of Aisha's underage marriage does not fit into the traditional Islamic chronology of events. Traditional Islamic sources, including the book of Imam Bukhari, tell us that Aisha was present in the Battle of Uhud. There is a narration reporting that Prophet's companion Anas said: “On the day of the battle of Uḥud when some people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha bint Abī Bakr and Umm Sulaym, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins. Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” It is also known that the Battle of Uhud took place two years after the consummation of Aisha's marriage with the Prophet. If this is the case, and if Aisha was 9 when Prophet consummated the marriage, then it indicates a problem. An eleven-year-old girl would not be able to carry such heavy water skins and pour them into the mouths of the wounded, then refill them, and go back again in the battlefield. Furthermore, there is a narration that Ibn Umar did not receive permission from the Prophet to participate in the Battle of Uḥud because he was fourteen years old. If this is the case, then why would the Prophet have allowed a 11-year-old girl to accompany him in the battle? Either the hadith about Aisha's marital age is off, or the one about her being in the battle is. It is possible that both are wrong. Confusing much? That's my point. If Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, then it creates confusion, contradiction and inconsistency even within the Hadith and Seerah literature.

Another contradiction arises when we consider the age of Aisha’s sister Asma. The twelfth-century Damascene scholar, historian and biographer Ibn ‘Asākir (d. 1176 CE) narrates in Tārīkh Dimashq through his route to Ibn Abī az-Zinād that Aisha's sister Asma was ten years older than Aisha. In addition, the medieval Persian scholar Abū Nuʿaym (d. 1038 CE) says in Maʿrifat aṣ-Ṣahābah that Asma passed away in the year 73 AH/ 692 CE at the age of one hundred. If this was the case, that would make her twenty-seven years old at the time of hijra, meaning Aisha would have been seventeen at the time of hijra. We know that Aisha was married two or three years before hijra. This indicates that, Aisha was fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of marriage and probably around seventeen or eighteen when the marriage was consummated. Is it possible that Ibn ‘Asākir and Abū Nuʿaym are wrong about Asma’s age and her year of death? Yes, of course it is possible. The reason I quoted them, is to further emphasize the point that Aisha's marital age hadith doesn't fit into the traditional Islamic chronology of events.

Considering all the arguments and evidences, it becomes is clear that Hishām ibn ʿUrwa fabricated or invented this false hadith of Aisha's marital age in Iraq many years after the event. The other possibility is that either Hishām ibn ʿUrwa or some later narrators along the chain of transmission changed the original hadith and deliberately “pushed” Aisha's age number lower in order to exaggerate and stress upon the claim that she was young(“virgin”) at the time of her marriage.

Why would anyone fabricate or invent a false hadith, you may ask? Well, we must bear in mind that in those post-Prophetic times, there were sectarian rivalries, politics, and dynastic drama. Some folks with vested interests cooked up stories to fit their agenda, and falsely attributed them to Prophet Muhammad in retrospect.

(Besides Joshua Little and Javad T. Hashmi, please also refer to the criticism of this hadith of Aisha's underage marriage by scholars like Salah al-Din al-Idlibi, M***i Abu Layth, Dr. Shabir Ally and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. My conclusion in this answer is aligned with their opinions).

Now, I know what some you might be thinking. What's the catch here? Why all the fuss? If it's just simple math and logic, why can't everyone agree? Well, it's not that easy. Questioning this hadith messes with the “orthodox” and “authentic” status of al-Bukhari's book, and that's a big deal for some conservative Sunni Muslims. Unfortunately, many of them have hyped up the status of al-Bukhari's book to a level second to Qur'an in authority. This is the reason why many conservative Sunni clerics do not like to question the authenticity of the hadith of Aisha’s age, especially in an open forum. So, they just beat around the bush instead, making things worse.

Most common Muslims do not understand that there is nothing embarrassing or “blasphemous” about doubting the hadiths, even Sahih (“authentic”) hadiths. Back in the day, some of the mainstream classical Muslim scholars have rejected many hadiths if the Isnad (chain of transmission) and Matn (content) of such hadiths didn't meet their criteria of evaluation. And, mere establishment of a sound chain of transmission does not automatically prove the authenticity and historical accuracy of a Hadith. A Hadith can be considered inauthentic (or at least its meaning is not taken literally), if its matn or content goes against empirical evidence, sound Reason and overall spirit of the Qur'an. This is not some modernist, liberal and secular criteria of hadith evaluation. This has been the approach of many Muslim scholars and intellectuals of the past including Ibn al Jawzi, Khatib al Baghdadi and Ibn Rushd. Additionally, the scholars of Mutazilite school of thought believed that hadiths were susceptible to "abuse as a polemical ideological tool", and that the matn(content) of the hadith—not just the isnad(chain)—ought to be scrutinized for doctrine and clarity.

In the modern times, there have been some prominent Muslim intellectuals such as Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi, Rashid Rida, Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Iqbal, Edip Yüksel and many others, who have engaged in Matn criticism of Hadiths of the mainstream orthodox canon, in the light of scientific developments and changed socio-economic circumstances. They have encouraged a re-interpretation and even outright rejection of some or most of the Hadiths (no matter how sound are their chains of transmission). No learned scholar in his right mind can consider Hadith books as “divine scriptures”, especially considering the contentious and troubled history of transmission, forgery and misuse of many Hadith narrations after the death of prophet Muhammad. It was only after at least two centuries of Prophet’s death, that compilations of Hadiths in form of written books were produced. No matter how much effort was taken by sincere Hadith scholars and compilers, it was humanly impossible to remove every fake narration from their compilation. This is why it is not surprising to often find some illogical, un-Quranic and factually incorrect narrations and reports even in the most trusted books of Hadiths.

Let us now take this discussion in another direction. We all know that the bigots and haters who bring up this issue in debates again and again, are not interested in knowing the facts about Aisha and her age at the time of marriage, but their agenda is to desperately “prove” that Prophet Muhammad was a lust-driven, sinful and unethical person. This idea goes back to the time of Crusades. According to American scholar of Islam, Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet’s character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."

Since the time of Crusades, the critics and propagandists who portrayed Muhammad as someone “driven by sinful lust” ignored the fact that “before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character”, to quote British journalist and writer Myriam Francois-Cerrah. She further writes,

“To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.”

PS: I do not advocate for complete and indiscriminate rejection of all Hadiths. Rather, I contend that all Hadiths must be subjected to a hermeneutic of suspicion that gives precedence to the Qur'anic message and the Qur'anic ethos, a hermeneutic that prioritizes the Qur'an and uses it to critically assess the other sources. Hadiths were never meant to be another scripture alongside Qur'an. While writing this answer, I have tried my best to remain objective and unbiased. My answer is based on historical-critical approach, academic research findings and opinions of credible experts of history and religion. Please let me know (with reason and evidence) if I have made a mistake. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

DOWNLOAD RHIS APP TO IDENTIFY ISRSELI PRODUCTS
Følgende app HJELPER DERE MED Å FINNE UT HVILKE PRODUKTER WR PÅ BOIKOTT LISTA AV ISRAELSKE PRODUKTER

No Thanks app

Aj ki Achi baat SUNNAT POORI KARNA BOHUT ACHI BAAT HAI LEKIN KHIYAL RAHE THEEK SE poori KAREIN
1.PEHLI BIVI 15 SAAL UMAR MEIN BADI HO
2.DOOSRI BIVI PEHLI BIVI KE GUZAR JANE KE BAD KI JAYE AUR BEWAH HO
3. Kanwari Buchi yah teenager nahin .
4.Bewah
5Bewah
6. Bewah
7 mutalqa
8 .Qaid se azad
9.Qaid sw azad
10.Bewah
11.Mutalqa

https://www.facebook.com/share/Gk7tdd3rW3J4jfbC/?mibextid=WC7FNe

Mens vi tenker på hvordan vi skal trene bort de ekstra kiloene på trening sentret En million barn legger seg sultne i Ghaza .De har ikke bedt om å bli født.Vi voksne har et moralsk ansvar.Bidra med det du kan Barn er alltid uskyldig uansett religion🇵🇰🇵🇸🇳🇴🏳️