Peace to all

Another strong reason to trash all these derogatory hadeeths.
Can someone tell me whether there is a verse in AQ, which talks about Messenger marrying Aisha when she was 6 and consumed her marriage when she was 9? Or at least show me the chapter where the scenario is related and I read it myself.

Thank you

Peace
FJ

peace!!!

It is widely believed that Hazrat Ayesha?s age was seven years when she was married to the Prophet (Pbuh) and she was 9 when she came to live with him but this is wrong. The fact is that she was 17 when married and 19 at the time of her rukhsati (departure from her home to the husband?s house). There are too many indisputable evidences in favour of this. A few of those are listed below

1. Imam Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb, the author of famous work on Hadith, namely Mishkaat was also an acknowledged expert of Asma-ur-Rijal (the unique art of research on people). He registered the following about Hazrat Asma at the end of Mishkaat.

?She is Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr Siddiq...She is the mother of Abdullah Bin Zubair...She was 10 years older than her sister Ayesha...She died at the age of 100 in Makkah in 73AH...?(Mishkaat, Asma-ur-Rijal)

There is unanimity among all the scholars of Asma-ur-Rijal and historians on the above-mentioned facts.

It can be easily computed from above that being 100 years old in 73 AH, Hazrat Asma, daughter of Hazrat Abu Bak?r was at least 27 (100-73) years old at the time of Hijrah of the Prophet (Pbuh). If she died in the beginning of 73 AH, then her age was (100-72) 28 years at Hijrah. It is stated above that she was 10 years older than Hazrat Ayesha. It means Hazrat Ayesha was 18 years old at Hijrah. She came into the Nikah of the Prophet (Pbuh) one year before Hijrah and she shifted to the Prophet?s house two years later. Clearly, she was 17 at the time of nikah and 19 at her rukhsati.

2. The historians have placed Hazrat Ayesha between No. 17 and 20 in the list of those who were earliest to embrace Islam. Ibne Ishaq, the earliest authentic Islamic historian has placed her at No. 18. We also know that Hazrat Umar was the 40th person to embrace Islam and he entered into the faith in the first year of prophethood. It means Hazrat Ayesha was among those few who embraced Islam almost immediately after the declaration of prophethood. She must have been at least 5 years old to be categorized in the list of those who embraced Islam. Therefore her age was 18 when Hijrah came about 13 years later.

Examination of Hazrat Ayesha?s biography through accounts of Asma-ur-Rijal reveals that she was 17 when married to the Prophet and 19 when she came to live with him

Now imagine this. The saying goes that she was 7 at her nikah i.e. 8 at Hijrah that occurred 13 years after the declaration of prophethood. If it were true the declaration of prophethood occurred 5 years before her birth. Did she embrace Islam 5 years prior to her birth?

3. There are indications that she was among those who went to war of Badar but her presence in the battleground of Uhad is beyond doubt. It is in many authentic books of Hadiths and history that she was among those women in Uhad who were carrying water to the injured Sahaba. Now remember the incident of two young boys Rafe and Samra who were 13 and the Prophet (Pbuh) was not permitting them to join forces for their age but later agreed to their pleading as they were very enthusiastic. If Hazrat Ayesha was 10 when Uhad came about in 2 AH, was it possible that a new bride of 10 would have been permitted while the young boys of 13 were refused permission to go to Uhad? On the contrary if she was 18 at Hijrah her age was 20 and fit to take care of the injured in the battlefield when Uhad took place.

There are quite a number of other irrefutable evidences of her age being 19 when she entered into the Prophet?s home 2 years after her Nikah to him.

The wrong notion of her being 7 at marriage is widely accepted (and many Fiqh deductions are erroneously made on its basis) as there is a false report narrated by Hashsham bin Urwah in all the six most authentic collections of Hadith i.e. Sihah-e-Sittah! Hashsham bin Urwah was a very reliable narrator according to all scholars but this fact skipped the scrutiny of the famous Muhaddiseen of Sihah-e-Sittah that Hashsham became forgetful and unbalanced at his old age when he shifted to Iraq. The said report was narrated by him while he was in Iraq. Hashsham was the teacher of Imam Malik and he has accepted a number of Hadiths narrated by him in his collection of Hadith, Muatta. It was none other than Imam Malik, Hahsham?s disciple who declared after Hashsham shifted to Iraq that none of his former teachers? statements were reliable any more because of his mental condition. The compilers of Sihah-e-Sittah, all being non-Arabs were not aware of it.

Now you know that when Hazrat Ayesha came to the Prophet?s house she was a major. The age difference is still considerable but no law of any land objects to the union of mutual wilful consent of two majors. Remember also that the Prophet (Pbuh) possessed exceptional health at 53 with all his hair black and he being stronger than most youngsters. Besides he was an ideal husband and the history testifies to his ideal care of his young wife with all the psychological considerations.

---

KANEEZ RIGHTS AND WRONGS

(24) (Forbidden to you also) are married women, except those whom you own. Such is the decree of Allah. All women other than these are lawful to you, provided you seek them with your wealth in modest conduct, not in fornication. Give them their dowry for the enjoyment you have had of them as a duty; but it shall be no offence for you to make any other agreement among yourselves after you have fulfilled your duty. Allah is Knowing, Wise. (25) If any one of you cannot afford to marry free believing women, (let him marry) from among the owned believing women. Allah best knows your faith you are all alike (in terms of religion). Marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowry in all justice, provided they are honorable and chaste and have not entertained other men. If after marriage they commit adultery, they shall suffer half the penalty inflicted upon free adulteresses. Such is the law for those of you who fear to commit sin but if you abstain, it will be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (23-25)
http//www.alrisala.org/Articles/quranworld/full_quran/Nisa23-25.htm
...
The verses referred here, are the last revealed verses in the series of orders regarding physical relation with possessed-women. The earlier revelations in this connection came in Makkah. It was common practice in Arabia to maintain sexual relations with slave-women. The practice, just like prohibition, was restricted in phases, instead of its abolition in one go . First, in Makkan-era, the married persons were directed to snap sexual relations with them.

?Who guard their modesty except with those joined to them in the marriage bond or the (captive) women in their possession. They are free from blame?. (235-6 and 7029-30)

Mark the word ?OR? in the above verse. ?Wives or possessed-women?, (not ?the wives and possessed women?) were the initial restrictions. Then a few years later, in Madinah, the final verdict came; ?If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may marry (instead of resorting to free sex with) believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess. Moreover, Allah has full knowledge about your faith. You are one from another. Marry them with the leave of their owners and give them their Meh?rs according to what is reasonable... This (permission of marriage with captive-women) is for those among you who fear sin but it is better for you that you practice self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving. Most Merciful? (425)

For reasons, not being discussed here, Islam does not approve of marriage of free men with possessed-women. (by stating, ? you are one from another?, it has been made clear that all people are from one man and woman, and the reason of the above disapproval is not racial). However, if a person cannot afford to marry a girl from the free society, and he fears that he will not be able to practice restraint, and fears to commit sin, he is permitted to marry the possessed women. If Islam permitted sex with captive women, there was no need for the above elaboration.

The sequence of orders of the holy Qur?an is a very clear cut. Those who have misunderstood it, have erred, however great they were.

In no verse, Qur?an has approved of slavery. Please note that the phrase, ?whom your right hands possess?, has been used on all such occasions instead of being kept in jails, be distributed among the victorious believing men where they can observe the living examples of Islam in practice. No charter of rights for war captives can compare the code, Islam implemented on the possessors of such captives. They were directed to clothe and feed the captives as they themselves wore and ate. When the practice of slavery was prevalent throughout the world, it was not wise to stop believers to purchase the slaves. Instead, it was a boon for the slaves if the believers purchased them from those who treated them worse than animals. Muslims were given great incentives to free the slaves but it was not made obligatory for them that they should necessary free them after spending enormous sums. Qur?an used the phrase, ?whom your right hands possess?, instead of ?your slaves?, Qur?an further proclaimed.

?O mankind, we created you from a single male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may recognise each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)?. (4913)

As, the Islamic social order based on the above principle, took reign and its influence spread, the kind of slavery, in which slavery, in which slaves were traded in the market was automatically abolished from the Muslim ruled lands. It was still not advisable to debar the believing men from acquiring slaves from other parts of the world, who after being purchased became ?the people who were possessed? from the slaves they earlier were. The most striking example of the social transformation was exhibited by the Prophet (Pbuh) himself. He possessed a boy Anas who refused to go home with his father when he came to claim him. With the further spread of Islam over a larger part, the sale-purchase of men was automatically abolished and the phrase, ?whom your right hands possess?, became applicable to the war captives only. The application of the phrase is still open and today it can be applied to yet other categories of people who are possessed by others in many ways.

Qur?an has permitted Muslims to wed Christian girls. It says ?(All) good things have this day been made lawful to you. The food of those to whom the Book was given is lawful to you, and yours to them. Lawful to you are the free believing women and the free women from among those who were given the Book before you, provided that you give them their dowries (Mehar) and live in honour with them, neither committing fornication nor taking them as mistresses...? (55)

Please note that the above permission is not absolute. Food and women of the people who were given the Book, have been described to be lawful in the same verse. Both of them are unconditional, irrespective of other laws regarding food or women or other laws, stated in connection with either of the two. Some scholars are of the opinion that the food permission of the people of the Book is subjected to the conditions laid down in other verses describing food (Zabeeha) laws. They however, insist that the permission of marrying their women is absolute and unconditional. This is obviously illogical and against common sense. Compared to them, the opinion of those Ulema is more logical who say that both the food and women of people of the book are permitted unconditionally. Obviously this is also not judicious. It would mean that the food of the people of the Book will be permitted even if they do not pronounce the name of One God over it or even if they slaughter the animals in the name of gods other than Allah. If they slaughter with incorrect procedure or abruptly (with Jhatka), even then it would be permitted. Qur?an has clearly prohibited the meat of that animal on which the name of other than Allah is pronounced and that meat is also forbidden over which the name of Allah is not pronounced. This condition will surely apply to the above verse. Similarly the clearly defined principles of marriage will also apply to the above verse. Marriage in relations specified in the verses 4 22-23 is unlawful. For example, marrying a real niece is not permitted irrespective of whether she is a Muslim or Christian. Similarly Qur?an says ?You shall not wed Mushrik women (idolatresses or those ascribing partners to Allah) till they believe (in One God alone)...? (2221) This condition will also apply in case of marriage to a Christian. That is, marriage with a Christian girl is permitted only if she believes and proclaims that Jesus Christ was not the Son of Allah but His bondsman and a prophet.

The primary aim of any girl to embrace Islam may have been the love of a man. There is no harm in it, but the conversion should be sincere and not a farce, otherwise there is no need of conversion. An adult man and woman, whose marriage is otherwise lawful, can marry without the permission of the parents but it is not advisable. Adults should behave and think like mature adults. You must be aware of Christians marrying into other religions for missionary purpose. Thousands of unwary Muslims are being lured by Christian suitors in this manner. They even feign to become Muslims for the purpose of such marriages and in a short time convince their partners to leave Islam. A sincere Muslim who has the sense of enquiring about Islamic view cannot take such risks which may endanger his eternal life.

If the girl remains a Christian, the change of name is unnecessary. If she embraces Islam sincerely, though Islam does not bind her to change the name (if the meaning of the name is not Un-Islamic), she should not be averse to the suggestion. However if she is not deceiving or falsely posing to embrace Islam and she wants to keep her old name, there is no compulsion over her.

Q. How can a religion such as Islam expect to thrive when it espouses jihad and revenge and all of the things that most of the other religions of the world would deem to be the work of the ?devil?? Did the perpetrators of the recent terrorist acts expect the praise of Allah at the end of their journey, after having killed so many people? Perhaps the rest of the world should become as tolerant of Islam, as Islam is to the rest of the world.

(Danny ; dano)

Q. The Quran does not describe a peaceful, tolerant religion. The terrorists are not disobeying the holy book. They are following it to the letter. The Quran tells us ?not to make friendship with Jews and Christians? (551), ?kill the disbelievers wherever we find them? (2191), ?murder them and treat them harshly? (9123), ?fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem? (95). The Quran demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises ?If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them? (865). This is the bulk of the Quran. You are welcome to counter with a handful of verses like ?There is no compulsion in religion,?, and ?To you, your religion; to me mine.?

But for every friendly remark like that, there are 10 calls for killing of Pagans, Jews, and Infidels, and vivid descriptions of how they will suffer in hell (boiling water poured over their heads, clothes cut from fire, etc). Can any reasonable person conclude that the Quran encourages freedom, tolerance, and equal treatment of our brothers?

Don?t get me wrong, the Christians? Bible has the same proportion of good to bad. Jesus has benefited from 2000 years of good public relations, without a doubt. Let?s stop pretending that any of these ?holy books? contain the secret for living a peaceful co-existence and recognise what is the universal truth in the practice of all ethical systems we, as humans, have the ability to recognise good and evil, and it has nothing to do with what is written in the ancient tomes of wisdom. If all the people of the world were to follow the teachings of the ancient Prophets of their choice ?to the letter?, we would have a non-stop world-wide holy war.

( Smith)

A. Islam could not have reached through the dormant stage of the past centuries to re-emerge once again as the fastest growing religion on earth today without its concept of Jihad. Yes, it would not have thrived if the Jihad was what you think it is and what some terrorist organisations proclaim. Assuming as you believe that the recent terrorist acts in USA were the work of so-called Muslims or Jihadis, it is obvious that this has driven millions of neutral non-Muslims away from Islam. Yet Jihad is a pious pillar of Islam which has always been attracting millions of human beings to embrace Islam. Let me explain in brief the Islamic concept of war and peace.

The Quran speaks of lifting arms in strictly two situations. In the first situation, the permission is granted to defend themselves when in a Muslim state, they are attacked by those who had already driven Muslims out of their country for the specific reason that they professed and worshipped one God. Remember, it does not allow a Muslim majority province of a non-Muslim majority country to revolt and demand a separate Muslim state. If Muslims are oppressed in a non-Muslim majority country for their religion (not for social or political conflicts), they are advised to migrate to a Muslim state, instead of taking to arms. But if an independent Muslim state is attacked by an enemy of Islam for their religion, then Quran permits them to defend. See the following order of the Quran.

?Permission (to take up arms) is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been wronged. Allah has power to grant them victory those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said ?Our Lord is Allah...?. (2239-40)

The second situation is when Islam orders an attack instead of a defensive war. When a group of people are oppressed in a country and they are crying for help, Islam orders its followers to go out to fight the oppressor. The relevant order is as under

?And why should you not fight for the cause of Allah, and for the oppressed men, women and children who say, ?Deliver us Lord, from this city of wrongdoers, send forth to us a guardian from your presence ; send to us one that will help us? (475)

When the believers are attacked, they are given permission to defend, but it has been emphatically made clear that justice should not be a casualty even while fighting. As soon as the attackers pledge to keep away from sedition, the believers are ordered to stop fighting.

?Fight for the sake of Allah those who fight against you but do not transgress. Allah does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. The sedition is worse than carnage. But do not fight them within the precincts of the sacred Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded but if they desist, know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Fight against them until sedition is no more and Allah?s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight not except the oppressors? (2190-93)

The above verses contain one of the verses objected to by Mr. Smith. The act of a self- proclaimed protector of human rights cannot match the balanced teaching of the holy Book you so much despise. In its every above mentioned phrase, there is a check. ?...Do not transgress... Allah does not love the transgressors... Do not fight them near the Mosque unless they attack you... If they desist, know that Allah is forgiving, Merciful... But if they desist, fight not except the oppressors...?. Mr. Smith has taken out the sentences from in-between to prove the cruelty of the teachings of the holy Book. Similar is the case of other verses that are quoted out of context. Please consider that these instructions are not the instruction for normal peace times. These are the war time instructions when war is imposed upon the believers. Quran instructs that the war is not declared on every unbeliever. Even during the war with the unbelievers, distinction has to be made in case of those who have treaties with the believers. Treaties have to be honoured. Even with those who impose war upon the believers, instructions are given for a respite from war in the four sacred months.

?Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, except those who have fully honoured their treaties with you and aided none against you. With these, keep faith until their treaties have run their term. Allah loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the unbelievers (who are fighting you) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way. Allah is Forgiving Merciful. (94-5)

Above is another of the objected upon (95) verse, but in proper context it becomes altogether different from what was projected. To understand the implication of another verse 865, that is objected to, you have to read the context from 861. The instruction here is to accept a peace proposal even if there is fear of deception from the enemy. Allah gives assurance that if you do so and the enemy deceives in the garb of peace, He will help them against great odds. See the following

?If they incline to peace, make peace with them and put your trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing. Should they seek to deceive you, Allah is all sufficient for you... (In that case) rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, you shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred they shall rout a thousand...? (861-65)

Unless the fighting is imposed upon them, the believers are told to keep away from war even if there is a probability of treachery in the garb of their offer of peace. Can the so-called human ethics of the present Super power match with this?

?If they (the attackers) incline towards peace, make peace with them and put your trust in Allah. Surely He is Hearing, the Knowing. Should they seek to deceive you (do not reject peace on that probability, for) Allah is All-Sufficient for you...? (661-62) ?...if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, Allah bids you not to harm them?. (490)

?If from those who ascribe partners to Allah even one person (during the war) seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah and then (even if he does not embrace Islam), deliver him to his place of safety, for they are men ignorant (from the reality of Islam)?. (96)

Qur?an asks the believers not to lose the sense of justice even for the enemies.

?O believers, be dutiful to Allah and bearers of just witness. Do not allow your hatred for other men to turn you away from justice. Deal justly ; justice is nearer to true piety...? (5

Regarding the charge of teaching not to make non-Muslim friends, the short instruction in 551 above quoted by Mr. Smith, is governed by the following two verses

?Let believers not make friends with unbelievers against the (just) interests of the believers...? (22

?Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on your religion nor driven you from your homes or abetted others to do so. Allah loves the equitable. But He forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your religion and driven you from your homes or abetted others to do so. Those who make friends with them are wrongdoers?. (608-9)

Remember again, the above verses are relevant only when there is war imposed upon the believers. The general instruction for all times whether it is peace time or war is given in the following verse

?...Cooperate with every one (whether he is a non-Muslim) in what is good and pious and do not cooperate with anyone (even if he is called a Muslim) in sin and transgression...? (52) Br. Kevin Smith has probably read somewhere the translation of verses of the Quran taken out of context. He is absolutely misinformed that such verses outnumber the message of peace. In fact, in between the verses concerning war, there always is the directive of restraint and conciliation. The conduct of the Prophet (Pbuh) is a historical testimony to the teaching of the Quran.

In the course of war, the Prophet (Pbuh) enforced a code of conduct for the believers. ?No women, no children, no old men and no labourers would be killed if they were not involved in direct combat even if they were on the battlefield to help the enemy ranks indirectly?.The Prophet (Pbuh) adhered to the above code of war and peace in his life. He had to migrate with his followers to Madinah, away from his home town Makkah, leaving all their belongings back. All the three major conflicts with the Makkans took place when they attacked on Madinah. Eight years after the migration, he marched towards Madinah to fight because the Makkans had killed his allies against a treaty made 2 1/2 years back and the oppressed allies appealed for his help. History has never witnessed such a show of compassion by a conqueror. In those 8 years, he had become so strong that the Makkans did not dare to fight him. When he was entering into Makkah with his army, his head bowed in thankfulness to God, a senior commander announced, ?Today is the day of revenge?. The Prophet?s face turned red with anger and he ordered to strip the commander off the honour of bearing the flag. Then he declared, ?Today is the day of compassion?. When the victorious army entered the city without resistance, he proclaimed general amnesty for all those who had tormented him and his followers for 13 years. He did not even claim the homes and belongings of his own and his followers.

Islam is not intolerant. It is the message of peace for the mankind. Jesus Christ was an esteemed prophet of Islam and a messenger of peace as were the other prophets mentioned in Old Testament. You have not read Qur?an and what you find revolting in the Bible is because of distortions and interpolations in the events therein.

We, as humans, can never show the ability to recognise good and evil without adhering to and following what you call is written in the ancient tomes of wisdom. The human rights record of USSR and China and the much tainted record of USA in Vietnam and 22 other countries since world war II testifies to it. You talk about the danger of world war because of tomes of wisdom while the world has already witnessed two world wars by the mighty wise European nations because they were wiser than the ancient tomes of wisdom. The world can only become a universal brotherhood if it heeds to the balanced teaching of the Prophets. Let no terrorist, by exploiting scriptures deceive you.

http//www.islamicvoice.com/march.2002/dialogue.htm#ini