Muhammad(pbuh)

[dc2]

thanks for the post edip. great article.

[Bubbles]

Hi
I am new to this site.I thank you Edip for this article refuting a wrong concept.
I have also heard about the objection concerning number of wives of the prophet? Do you have any refuation about it also ?

Historical sources attest that the Prophet had a number of wives and I don't see that as something objectionable. Most of the women that he married were widows or women that were divorced and they married him of their own free will.

[Ghazal]

Historical sources attest that the Prophet had a number of wives and I don't see that as something objectionable. Most of the women that he married were widows or women that were divorced and they married him of their own free will.

He could not go against God's order which is narrated in the Quran.It shows that he might be having only one wife.History is all rubbish.

[Nun de plume]

He could not go against God's order which is narrated in the Quran.It shows that he might be having only one wife.

33:28 You, you the prophet, say to your wives: "If you were (F) wanting (F) the life the present/worldly life and its decoration/beauty, so come, I make you (F) enjoy, I divorce/free you (F), divorce/freeing gracefully (peaceful/quiet)."

33:30 You, the prophet's women (wives), who does/commits from you (F) with an evident enormous/atrocious deed , the torture be doubled/multiplied for her two doubles, and that was/is on God easy/little.

33:32 You, the prophet's women (wives), you are not as anyone from the women, if you feared and obeyed so do not soften/submit/obey with the word/opinion and belief, so wishes/desires who in his heart/mind (is) sickness/disease, and say (F) a kind/generous word/opinion and belief.

33:59 You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers' women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

[Bubbles]

He could not go against God's order which is narrated in the Quran.It shows that he might be having only one wife. History is all rubbish.

[Edip Yuksel]

Here is one of the articles by a Sunni analizing the hearsay stories:

I made an assumption based on where the article was published (Minaret magazine), but yesterday I decided to contact the author of the article on Aisha's age, to my surprize I learned that he rejects hadiths like we do.

Peace,
Edip

[Andya Primanda]

I made an assumption based on where the article was published (Minaret magazine), but yesterday I decided to contact the author of the article on Aisha's age, to my surprize I learned that he rejects hadiths like we do.

Peace,
Edip

He's Mr. T.O. Shanavas, isn't he...

Please ask him to join us in this forum, bro Edip!

[farida]

I made an assumption based on where the article was published (Minaret magazine), but yesterday I decided to contact the author of the article on Aisha's age, to my surprize I learned that he rejects hadiths like we do.

Peace,
Edip

Salaam
I read this article few years back maybe it was by the same author, I did pasted it ( I think) on this forum but there wasn't much interest shown. I am glad this subject is discussed and you can also read counter arguments on this website below.


What was Ayesha?s (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?

What was Ayesha?s (ra) age at the time of her marriage?

It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that.

Reply1

To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)
Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) 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, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.


These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) 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.

I hope I have been of some help.

Best Regards   

The Learner                                                                                                       Read Next Comment




http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-005.htm

[Ghazal]

We should beleive that the prophet never married more than one wife.This is Quranic principle.Please do not quote fabricated material .You know all this history stuff is full of lies.
Thanks

[alifaiz]

Firstly i would like to thank everyone that has shown me how unreliable and conflicting the hadiths regarding aisha's age are. But i have yet to find convincing evidence that muhammad(pbuh) and the first caliphs fought only defensive wars. Below are some instances of the caliphs who were guaranteed paradise by muhammad(pbuh) being quite brutal. 


"The Rightly Guided Caliphs" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi

Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi discusses the Islamic wars which were initiated by the four caliphs who succeeded Muhammad and who, at the same time, are his favored relatives. These caliphs are: Abu Bakr, ?Umar, ?Uthman and ?Ali. Muhammad married ?Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Hafesa, daughter of ?Umar. ?Uthman married Ruqayya, the daughter of Muhammad, then after her death, he married her sister Um Kalthum. ?Ali was married to Muhammad?s youngest daughter, Fatima al-Zahra.

On pages 35-38, Dr. Abu Zayd remarks,

"Muhammad had prepared an army to invade the borders of Syria. When Muhammad died Abu Bakr sent an army headed by Usama Ibn Zayd and ?Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The army marched towards southern Palestine and invaded some parts of the land, frightened the people and captured some booty."

At the beginning of page 70, Dr. Abu Zayd talks about the Islamic conquests and indicates that at the inception of the year 12 of Hajira, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid Ibn al-Walid to invade Persian lands and to seize the ports near Iraq. Khalid marched with the army, but before he started the war, he sent his famous message to Hermez, one of the Iraqi generals, "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax, or fight." The Hermez declined to accept any of these terms but war. The Persians were defeated in this battle and Khalid seized the booty and sent Abu Bakr one-fifth of the spoils of war, exactly as they were accustomed to send to Muhammad. One-fifth of the booty belonged to God and to Muhammad.

Abu Bakr presented Khalid with the Hermez?s tiara which was inlaid with gems. Dr. Abu Zayd says the value of the gems amounted to 100,000 dirham (p. 73). After that, the successful, savage invasions continued against other countries which could not repel the forces of Islam. This Azhar scholar tells us that in the battle of Alees which took place on the border of Iraq, Khalid killed 70,000 people! He was so brutal in his attack that the nearby river was mixed with their blood (p. 75).

On p. 77, Dr. Abu Zayd mentions another country which surrendered to Khalid. Khalid demanded that they pay 190,000 dirhams. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq, its people took shelter in one of the fortresses. Khalid laid siege to the fortress and forced them to come out. He killed all of them mercilessly. They had done nothing against him or against the Muslims except that they refused to embrace Islam and to recognize Muhammad as an apostle of God. The Muslims seized all that they found in the fortress along with forty young men who were studying the Gospel. Khalid captured them and divided them among the Muslims (refer to p. 81).

It is well-known that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was a very brutal, vicious man. His relentlessness made ?Umar Ibn al-Khattab ask Abu Bakr to kill him or at least to depose him because he killed another Muslim in order to marry his wife! Abu Bakr did not listen, but when ?Umar became the second caliph, he deposed him immediately This was ?Umar?s opinion about Khalid. Yet, to Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, Khalid was one of the best among his relatives and warriors.

On page 134, Abu Zayd relates that when Khalid besieged another town called Qinnasrin which belonged to the Byzantine Empire, its people were so afraid that they hid themselves from him. He sent them a message in which he said: "Even if you hide in the cloud, God will lift us up to you or He will lower you down to us." They asked for a peace treaty, but he refused and killed them all. Then he eradicated the town. These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd which we faithfully relay to you.

Dr. Abu Zayd continues to list the names of the towns and the regions which the Islamic army invaded after the fall of ?Ain al-Tamr. He says:

"By the end of the year 12, Hajira Abu Bakr became interested in Syria (Al Sham). He issued orders to four of his great generals and designated for each one of them a country which he was given to invade. He assigned Damascus to Yazid, Jordan to Sharhabil, Homs to Abu ?Ubayda and Palestine to ?Umru Ibn al-?As.

We wonder: Are these wars defensive wars or are they definitely offensive wars and unjustified military invasions? Abu Bakr?s era ends during the famous battle of Yarmick in which tens of thousands were slain for no reason except to impose religion by force, capturing women and plundering the properties. Muslims claim that Abu Bakr died from eating poisoned food a few months before.

When ?Umar was elected to the Caliphate, he deposed Khalid Ibn al-Walid and replaced him immediately with Abu ?Ubayda.



The Caliphate (ruling period) of ?Umar Ibn al-Khattab

The Invasion of Persia 

?Umar Ibn al-Khattab sent Sa?d Ibn Abi Waqqas to invade Persia. He camped in al-Qaddisia near the river Euphrates. Dr. Abu Zayd narrates for us a very important incident (pages 117-118) which we would like to examine. The author says:

"Sa?d sent some of his followers (among them the Mu?man Ibn Maqrin to Yazdagird, one of the Persian generals) who asked him, ?What enticed you and brought you to invade us?? (Ibn Maqrin) said to him, ?Choose for yourself either Islam or the poll-tax or the sword.? The Persian general became very angry and said to him, ?Had it not been (the custom that messengers should not be killed), I would have killed you. Go; you have nothing to do with me."?

Ibn Khaldun confirms this incident in the end of the second volume of his famous history book (pages 94-96). He says,

"Rustan, the Persian general, said to one of Sa?d?s messengers, ?You were poor and we used to provide you with plenty of food. Why do you invade us now?"?

It was obvious that the Persians had never thought to invade the Arabs, but they used to send them plenty of food because of the poverty of the Arab peninsula. Never-the-less, the Arabs seized the opportunity to invade Persia after they realized that the Persians had been weakened by its wars with the Byzantine Empire and their own internal problems. Thus, they repaid compassion with wickedness and goodness with evil. The question which the Persian general Sa?d asked was a logical one, "Why do you attack us? Did we mistreat you?" The answer was also very clear, "You have three options!" Dr. Abu Zayd says on in p. 123:

"Sa?d seized (after the battle of Qadisiyya) all that was in the treasury of Khusro of money and treasure. It was so plentiful that each Arab horseman received 12,000 dirham."

The Invasion of Damascus

On pages 131 and 132 of the same book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author indicates,

"Abu ?Ubayda marched towards Damascus and besieged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. Then Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. (They were forced) to ask for a peace treaty. Abu ?Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring (cities). He attacked Sidon, Beirut, and others."

The Attack on Jerusalem

On pages 136 and 137, we read about the attack of ?Umru Ibn al-?as on Jerusalem. He besieged it for four months. Then its Christian inhabitants agreed to pay the poll-tax and to surrender to ?Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the caliph. ?Umar made the trip to Jerusalem and laid the foundation of the mosque. With that, the conquest of Syria was accomplished, but as the pestilence (plague) raged, many of the high-ranking generals of the Islamic army died, among them Abu Ubayda, Yazid and Sharahbil.

The Invasion of Wealthy Egypt

On pages 141 and 142, the author narrates how the invasion and occupation of Egypt were accomplished. Among the justifications which ?Umru Ibn al-?As presented to ?Umar which convinced him to allow ?Umru to attack Egypt were the following:

"Egypt?s abundance and yields are plentiful. The conquest of Egypt would gain for the Muslims a foothold in Syria and make it easier for them to invade Africa to spread Islam."

It is important to mark ?Umru?s statement that "Egypt?s abundance and yields are plentiful." Eventually Egypt and Africa were both conquered.

On pages 145 and 146, the professor of civilization at the Azhar relates how ?Umru besieged the Fortress of Babylon (south of ancient Egypt) for a full month, and that he said to the messengers of the Muqawqis, the governor of Egypt,

"There is nothing between us and you except three things:

(1) Embrace Islam, become our brethren and you will have what we have and you will be subjected to what we are subjected (in this case they would pay alms to the treasury of the state).

(2) If you refuse that, you are obligated to pay tribute with humiliation.

(3) War.

"The Muqawqis attempted to offer them something different, but they rejected it. At last, after a fight, he accepted the second condition, namely to pay tribute and to be subjugated to Islamic rule. The Muslims entered Egypt. "

On page 147 and 148 Abu Zayd describes the conquest of Alexandria and denies that the Muslims burned the famous library of Alexandria. Yet he admits that many chroniclers have mentioned that ?Umar Ibn al-Khattab ordered ?Umru to burn it entirely.

[ Web editor's note: Abu Zayd is right in this. This story is a false rumor. See this page. ]
After the conquest and the occupation of Egypt, the author says (page 151) that ?Umru wanted to secure this conquest from the west by conquering Tripoli of Libya, and from the south by seizing Ethiopia. Thus at the close of the year 21 H. as Ibn Khaldun and Yaqut al-Kindi remarked (that is in the first half of the year 643 A.D. as Ibn al Athir and other chroniclers said), "?Umru marched on with his horsemen towards Tripoli."

On page 153 he adds:

"?Umru besieged Tripoli for a month. It was a well-fortified city. At last a group of Muslims infiltrated the city and fought some of the Byzantines who soon fled. ?Umar entered the city and captured all that was in it, then he assailed the city of Sabra without warning and conquered it by force. He seized all that could be seized from it. Then he sent his army to Ethiopia, but he failed to enter it and suffered great losses. The skirmishes continued until a peace treaty was signed during the time of ?Uthman Ibn ?Affan."

Are these wars considered defensive? What is an offensive war then?


Are the hadiths that grossly DISTORTED!!?? These recollections had to have come from somewhere! History shows companions of the prophet whom were promised paradise conquering nations aggressively. How can one argue this? Ne evidence?