What is the future of Islam?

Aidyl Nurhadi said:
Yes I do concur that the modern West has an entirely different approach to religion, one which is doing much damage to Christianity and opening great doors for atheism and paganism. Wiicca for example is gaining popularity among the kids in America, thanks to fantasy genres such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and so on. Authors like Silver RavenWolf has taken this hype about magic as an opportunity to spread her ideas and notions. By the way I'm a big fan of HP and Lotr, but I don't abandon my religion for the sake of a wand. All right, I think I've given more than enough words here lol and I really must be going. I look forward for your feedback and may Allah S.W.T guide us all to the right path.

It should be noted that in the Americas, "nature worship" (similar to Wicca), has been practiced long before "Christians" ever arrived on scene (in fact well before Christianity or Islam ever existed for that matter). It should also be noted that these "nature worshipping" peoples lived relatively peaceful lives with each other and their neighbors. They also had a very strong connection with a "father God" figure.

There is nothing new, only cycles that wax and wane.

2c

v/r

Q
 
Aidyl Nurhadi said:
lol very long convoluted contribution that have drawn much wool over our eyes.You said and I quote," Actually, I was talking those who were beyond reach. I thought it was clear in the sense we were talking about sharing our faith with others.:) That's what I meant when I said "I don't think God will necessarily throw everyone else into hell." I was saying that I thought maybe He wouldn't do it to those people just because we didn't have a chance to share our faith." Do you understand English mate? Do you know what the word "said" or the phrase "was talking" mean? Lol...you didn't say or talk about those BEYOND REACH.......The point is that the BEYOND REACH assertion was inserted in your later contribution. If you still want to dispute about it, go ahead. Men can be very egoistic at times. I will understand.

Never mind the precise details on what I said in my posts.:) I am discussing, not disputing. What I meant by "everyone else" was, actually "those beyond reach." I didn't expect that someone reading my posts would pick at flaws in my post as I was simply sharing my experiences and what I knew.:D

Absense of a point, or failure to address a point does not necessarily constitute ignorance, but simply failure to communicate. In life we see different things as important and neglect everything else. When we express ourselves, it becomes evident in what we say or do. Often, even though what we say is not perfect, the intention is clear. Sometimes, even our intentions are not conveyed properly.

When I post, I post my point of view. Whatever we post, it's just an incomplete picture not only of the universe in which we live, but also what we know and have experienced. I don't know the life experiences that have resulted in the view you have now, and you don't know mine. As for my awareness and your awareness of issues in Western society, you don't really know how much I know, and I don't really know how much you know. Unless we have spent 1,000 hours discussing this we will not have a clue what the other person knows.

We often expect people to understand us because we believe that what we think is universal. We assume that they would have the same view if they were functioning correctly as human beings. We find, upon talking to them, that they really don't think the same way. It's because their life experiences are totally different.

Different people seek different kinds of religions. Some are systematic, ideological, concrete and dogmatic. Others seek something sentimental, mystical, naturalistic or abstract. Some have a simplistic and straightforward approach to the concept of God. Others are meticulous and discerning in their concept of God. Each group/individual may think of its own view as universal.

So don't focus too much on the details, loopholes, flaws and errors. Just explore. See the person not the problems.:) My goal is to absorb what has value and discard everything else.

Final comment. It's true that I am male. I have an ego. I can be stubborn too. I am sure you understood this.:confused: Thanks, I needed that. Ouch that hurt. Why did you have to hurt my feelings?:D
 
Re: well

well, i feel in your assumption of Chinas role in "wwIII" you are sorely mistaken, for one China is the oldest civilization in the world and it is not because they are so big, or because somehow the chinese seem to live for a real long time or because they have strong kung fu

it is because China, as a nation, has always upheld a "walk the middle path" philosophy, which simply means..they keep to themselves..of course China has had its fair share of change occur over the millenia, regardless this general philosophy has existed throughout its entire history

now, some can point a finger and say, well what about Chinas role in the korean war? or the vietnam war, well simply put it was a brand new China, they were communists helping out other Communists like Communists always do, but over the decades China has changed drastically, including its foreign relations with the U.S.

now it is a known fact that China, as a general population still today upholds the "middle path" philosophy, so i seriously doubt..as a scholar of China and its people, that they will be engaging in any mass murder of the middle eastern countries, which they have no part of anyway, well except for maybe some illegal weapons deals, but then again, as i say China has changed and it is still a third world country..

anyway, nough said about China

imho, i dont really know enough about islam to say where it will go because really i got no damn idea where its been..i will say this though, 9/11 has opened up alot of peoples eyes to islam ingeneral, atleast more people know about it! because i tell ya, i didnt know diddly squat before the towers fell..now i know a vast amount more...

amitabha

You are sorely mistaken if you feel you learned something about Islam after 9/11 my friend.
 
Re: well

You are sorely mistaken if you feel you learned something about Islam after 9/11 my friend.

May I assume that Islam subscribes to religious rationality? ... a tenet of spiritual transcendence that asserts that truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be incorrect. It dictates that spiritual interaction is only possible between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man; claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not prudent.

If all religions would agree thereto, then interreligious unity could be established....end result, peace. :D :confused:
 
At some point, maybe someone working in foreign policy will figure out that when you hurt somebody with brothers, the brothers will feel for their pain. When you institutional a program of policy that is seen to be oppressive of many brothers, many more will become enraged.

How true...and to think that we are all, just tiny energy bubbles within a larger energy bubble called Earth, which is a small bubble within the universe...and we, intellectual mankind, create our own problems and wars..and kill our own brothers.:confused:
 
salam every body,
the future is Islam and Islam is the future. please, do not take my words as a sort of blind zealatory.but i really think that Islam is the future of the world,. not b/c i m Muslim, but b/c its teachinhs really suit the human nature.the real Islam will grow with the real knowledge.Unfortunately, the Muslim world are drowning in the sea of illetracy. when the attacks took place,and these events are said to be done in the name of Islam, people all over the world begin to have a deep desire to know about Islam.surprisingly, they find it a religion of love and peace and they embrace it, if not they respect it at least. i still remember Jaroudi statements when he discovered the terrible siruation of some Muslims:" I thank Allah that I had known Islam before I know Muslims"
salamo3alaykom
 
salam every body,
the future is Islam and Islam is the future. please, do not take my words as a sort of blind zealatory.but i really think that Islam is the future of the world,. not b/c i m Muslim, but b/c its teachinhs really suit the human nature.the real Islam will grow with the real knowledge.Unfortunately, the Muslim world are drowning in the sea of illetracy. when the attacks took place,and these events are said to be done in the name of Islam, people all over the world begin to have a deep desire to know about Islam.surprisingly, they find it a religion of love and peace and they embrace it, if not they respect it at least. i still remember Jaroudi statements when he discovered the terrible siruation of some Muslims:" I thank Allah that I had known Islam before I know Muslims"
salamo3alaykom

Even the Qu'ran notes the end of Islam, and the death of millions...even the good people.

Where is Islam noted as the future in the Qu'ran? Hadith is not Qu'ran...Qu'ran is word of God, and Hadith is law of man...last I checked.

v/r

Joshua
 
I am actually pleased that awareness of Islam is growing in the West, and I hope Muslims are becoming more aware of Christianity in the Middle East. It is horrible that the old Crusade fiascoes still are being repeated time and time again. I hope the next generation of Muslims are paying attention to the follies of their current leaders and once things settle down they will begin to reach out to the rest of the world more often. Today, this is happening to a large extent, there are frequent interfaith gatherings where all major traditions are represented. Every faith teaches oneness and unity, how each of us are intimately woven together, we must move this to a worldly vision - but not by extinguishing everyone that doesn't hold our view. This must be realized by concentrating on similarities rather than differences, where there is hate, the seed of love must be planted. These disputes are age old, they have shaped the traditions because Christians, Muslims, and Jews are more concerned with differentiating from each other than in discovering truth, that their beliefs are exactly the same and that men have created the differences to grow their own power. Man cannot act justly when presented with power, always he loses perspective of his place. These faiths teach the sovereignty of God, yet decides men should be rulers instead. Settle civil issues, assign punishments based on agreed law, and let God - Allah or Yehwah, name doesn't matter for it is of human origin - guide.

This is why the East is so much more advanced spiritually compared to the West, they have accepted the guidance of God - Dharmakaya or Brahman, more names of the one created by man - and are concentrated on drawing nearer to him rather than disputing which name of God is preferred, which guiding light towards realization of oneness is most correct. When we are disputing these differences, we are ensuring we never attain to God's favor, for we are doing exactly what he has warned against repeatedly through history. The Muslims say Nothing exists save God, the Christians say We have our being in God and he in us, the Buddhist says everything is interconnected, the Hindu says we are all part of God, this is what is important, not which explanation is used for discovering the truth of it. It is difficult in a world of diversity to register the union of everything, but at least lets agree it is only possible that each has described the same source. Every differentiation must be dropped, at least when addressing one another, for humankind to unify and establish sustained peace.

If this is not realized, we will blow up this planet eventually. What if we're all wrong? What if we have all put our faith in something which is a lie? If there is no more earth, it becomes rather difficult to apologize and take it back, we are left without even the possibility of children so a part of us remains in the manifested reality. We must realize that each of us is faced with the same struggles in this life, the same conditions, if God wishes the extermination of a group of people he could do it for he is Omnipotent. What right do any of us have to do anything but improve the conditions of those around us? Certainly, I uphold the One, but it is still an interesting question.
 
I found this explanation:

Decline and rise of Islam: (Qur’an 57:16 (22). Muhammad Ali notes: Commenting on this verse, IJ quotes an earlier authority to the effect that the first thing that will be taken away from the people is khushu‘ or humbleness of heart. It is clear that this verse speaks of the Muslims of a later age, for it compares their case to those who were given the scriptures before them and then a long time having passed over them, their hearts hardened. It is therefore the later generations of the Muslims that are addressed in these words. They are reminded that after the passing of a long time, they will fall off from the high standard of the earlier generations, and their hearts will be hardened like the hearts of the earlier people.”
(Verse 22). The book here means Divine knowledge. Disaster is here spoken of as befalling in the earth or in yourselves, i.e., it either affects the people of the world generally or the Muslims in particular. Dailami records a report from the Prophet: “A door of disasters will be opened for my community (ummah) in the latter days, which you will be unable to close, unless you meet the situation with this verse.” And then the Prophet recited this verse. In view of what has already been stated in verse 16, relating to the lapse of a long time and the hardening of the hearts of the Muslims, it is easy to see that the disasters which are predicted as befalling the Muslims in the latter days are due to their own falling off from the high standard of life which they were required to follow, and hence the remedy suggested is again the making of sacrifices as pointed out in v. 18. The great World-wars, which have brought the heaviest disasters on humanity in general, and the disasters of the Muslims in particular, are all spoken of in the Hadith.

We are told in the Hadiths that people will experience such great tribulation/trials not only by opression and attacks from non-Muslims (Prophet Muhammad pbuh said that non-Muslims will attack Muslims on all sides to take away their wealth as if starved are sitting at a table with food), but also in terms of their faith: they will not know anything but "La Illaha IllaAllah." But, Prophet pbuh mentioned that even knowing that will save the people from Hell Fire.
 
Can there be improvements for the future Muslim generations? Sure. There are hundreds of unislamic customs that many Muslims practice that could and should be eliminated. The question is, though: are non-Muslims wishing to see Muslims "free" of their own religion and its requirements, or are they wishing to live with Muslims who practice authentic Islamic teachings that many have not abided by for a long while now? I think the answer is in the former.
 
there was an interesting programme recently on BBC 2 "The Life of Mohamed" if you believe that it would seem that authentic Islam ended not lang after mohamed died, shame really.
 
Salam NiceCupofTea,

Oh, no, I still believe that there is authentic Islam alive and well. It's been battling for Muslims' souls for a while now.

I am talking about innovations and unislamic customs that some Muslims either accepted later as "theirs" or never got rid off. I am talking about stuff like "honor" murders, female circumcisions, child brides (and yes, Muhammad pbuh did not marry a child nor did he have intercourse with a child--there is enough evidence to support this from the same sources that claim otherwise), not allowing women to participate in the society (i.e. forbidding them education, to drive, to be politically active), forcing women to either stay in a bad marriage or to get married, etc.

Not all Muslims do these kind of acts. Some of us are more religious, some of us are less religioius. Others are kind of in the middle. And yet, others are way too extreme in their (mis)understanding of the religious practices (it can go either far to left or far to right). And Islam seeks the middle way, as Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself taught that people should never be extreme in anything (i.e. food, love, work, religion).

I grew up in the socialist/communist regime as a child. Religion of any kind was not very supported, Islam especially. To gain status of any sort, one has to declare to be supportive of the regime and therefore act accordingly--aka sell your soul for this world. Also, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians and Slovenians could declare themselves by their ethnicity. Muslims who wished to remain so, had to declare themselves either as: Serb, Croat, Yugoslav (Jews and other minorities had to do the same) or Muslims. Notice only Muslims are identified by their religion, as if they were a people without nationality. When Tito came to power, he created something called Udba (a form of a secret service). It infiltrated all aspects of society. Thousands "disappeared"--anyone who did not go along with the regime.

Mine and my parents' generation saw sharp decline in Islamic practices (as did the other peoples in their own religious communities). Drinking, extra marital affairs, eating pork, sex out of marriage, abandoning of regular prayers, not fasting Ramadan, etc.--all that became norm for the majority. Muslims became "Muslims" only on paper, by their names.

My grandmothers and one grandfather were religious, pious people who worked hard all their lives to make ends meet. Yet, they failed to teach their children to remain faithful to Islam. Was it fear? Probably. At the same time, the society being the way it was, there was no social support for religion.

YET, that did not prevent ultra nationalist Christians to declare them 'fanatics' in 1990s. All that was left of a "Muslim" was in the name for majority, and that was not enough. Stripping Muslim populations of their own religious identity did not go far enough and therefore they had to be gotten rid of or they had to be "returned to their Christian roots, the Heavenly faith."
 
Salam NiceCupofTea,

Oh, no, I still believe that there is authentic Islam alive and well. It's been battling for Muslims' souls for a while now.

I am talking about innovations and unislamic customs that some Muslims either accepted later as "theirs" or never got rid off. I am talking about stuff like "honor" murders, female circumcisions, child brides (and yes, Muhammad pbuh did not marry a child nor did he have intercourse with a child--there is enough evidence to support this from the same sources that claim otherwise), not allowing women to participate in the society (i.e. forbidding them education, to drive, to be politically active), forcing women to either stay in a bad marriage or to get married, etc.

Not all Muslims do these kind of acts. Some of us are more religious, some of us are less religioius. Others are kind of in the middle. And yet, others are way too extreme in their (mis)understanding of the religious practices (it can go either far to left or far to right). And Islam seeks the middle way, as Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself taught that people should never be extreme in anything (i.e. food, love, work, religion).

I grew up in the socialist/communist regime as a child. Religion of any kind was not very supported, Islam especially. To gain status of any sort, one has to declare to be supportive of the regime and therefore act accordingly--aka sell your soul for this world. Also, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians and Slovenians could declare themselves by their ethnicity. Muslims who wished to remain so, had to declare themselves either as: Serb, Croat, Yugoslav (Jews and other minorities had to do the same) or Muslims. Notice only Muslims are identified by their religion, as if they were a people without nationality. When Tito came to power, he created something called Udba (a form of a secret service). It infiltrated all aspects of society. Thousands "disappeared"--anyone who did not go along with the regime.

Mine and my parents' generation saw sharp decline in Islamic practices (as did the other peoples in their own religious communities). Drinking, extra marital affairs, eating pork, sex out of marriage, abandoning of regular prayers, not fasting Ramadan, etc.--all that became norm for the majority. Muslims became "Muslims" only on paper, by their names.

My grandmothers and one grandfather were religious, pious people who worked hard all their lives to make ends meet. Yet, they failed to teach their children to remain faithful to Islam. Was it fear? Probably. At the same time, the society being the way it was, there was no social support for religion.

YET, that did not prevent ultra nationalist Christians to declare them 'fanatics' in 1990s. All that was left of a "Muslim" was in the name for majority, and that was not enough. Stripping Muslim populations of their own religious identity did not go far enough and therefore they had to be gotten rid of or they had to be "returned to their Christian roots, the Heavenly faith."

did you see the BBC programme ?

also can you point me to some sources that show mohamed did not marry a child ?

i understand many hadiths say he did, i hope you are not offended as i know this is a contrvertial issue and I only want to know the truth of the matter.
 
Salaam--

I personally did not see BBC program.

In regards to the sources, the sources are the Hadiths themselves. As much as they give us information about hazrat Aisha r.a. being a child-bride, at the same time they contain information that opposes such teaching. Goes to show that I, and some other Muslims, are right in continually saying that Hadiths are not divine Word of God, they are human product (written years after death of Prophet pbuh) and therefore are bound to contain inconsistencies and opposing teachings. I will look into the specifics for you and next time I will post them. Look for the 'Aisha's Age and Her Marriage' post from me in the near future.

I do not get offended, unless a person maliciously refuses to take into consideration anything that I may say. I cannot make others believe as I do, nor do I wish. But, when a questioner has a question, I hope that they are asking in order to seek truth not to promote further lies. In regards to you, I do not feel that you intend to insult me or Muslims. Like many others, I feel, you are looking to understand and I greately appreciate it.

Peace.
 
The future of Islam is rooted in its past: Alevism and Sufism. And do not forget Sikhism (the only monotheistic religion that does not prophecy an apocalypse) and Bahaism (the only major monotheistic group that holds God's Kingdom is here and now) are children of Islam (like Islam and Christianity are of Judaism).

The problem is fundamentalism (in all of the groups listed above). The Holy Writ is not the Logos. The Light Within, the Inner Christ, the Spirit of Adonai, the HU does not depend on the work of man (which Holy Writ must be). Childish and selfish things like a Third Temple, a Caliphate, an Apocalypse must be set aside and a Gandian viewpoint where that of God in everyone can be percieved must be taken up.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark
 
Salaam--

I personally did not see BBC program.

In regards to the sources, the sources are the Hadiths themselves. As much as they give us information about hazrat Aisha r.a. being a child-bride, at the same time they contain information that opposes such teaching. Goes to show that I, and some other Muslims, are right in continually saying that Hadiths are not divine Word of God, they are human product (written years after death of Prophet pbuh) and therefore are bound to contain inconsistencies and opposing teachings. I will look into the specifics for you and next time I will post them. Look for the 'Aisha's Age and Her Marriage' post from me in the near future.

I do not get offended, unless a person maliciously refuses to take into consideration anything that I may say. I cannot make others believe as I do, nor do I wish. But, when a questioner has a question, I hope that they are asking in order to seek truth not to promote further lies. In regards to you, I do not feel that you intend to insult me or Muslims. Like many others, I feel, you are looking to understand and I greately appreciate it.

Peace.


Salaam Amica!

i have to say Sis that the view that Ayesha [ra] got married to the prophet [saw] at the age of 6 and got her marraige consummated [went to live with the prophet [saw] at the age of 9 [so effectiely got 'married' at the age of 9] is decicively established from the Sunnah/hadith sources and there is a consensus on it; what this means that it is impossible for this view to be wrong for there are many hadiths that say that Allah would not make this ummah agree [have a consensus on] an error, thus apart from a few modernists, the entire ummah agree on this:

[in the following article, the questioners paragraphs and the Shaykhs answers are all together, but it can be easily figured out which is of which]

Question:


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.

Answer:


bism01.jpg


In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,



- 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.


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, Ayesha's (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.


Try more than eleven authorities among the Tabi`in that reported it directly from `A'isha, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha.


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.


Not so. Al-Zuhri also reports it from `Urwa, from `A'isha; so does `Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan, both major Madanis. So is the Tabi`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, one of the Seven Imams of Madina, from `A'isha. All the narratives of this event have been reported


Nor by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.


Not so. In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna from Khurasan and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya from Tabarayya in Palestine both report it.


Nor was this hadith reported only by `Urwa but also by `Abd al-Malik ibn `Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, Yahya ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu `Ubayda (`Amir ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud) and others of the Tabi`i Imams directly from `A'isha.


This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from `A'isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha, such as Qatada!

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. (vol11, pg 48 - 51)

Rather, Ya`qub said: "Trustworthy, thoroughly reliable (thiqa thabt), above reproach except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from his father and was criticized for it." Notice that Ya`qub does not exactly endorse that criticism.


As for Malik, he reports over 100 hadiths from Hisham as is evident in the two Sahihs and Sunan! to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of his alleged criticism of Hisham.


Indeed, none among the hadith Masters endorsed these reservations since they were based solely on the fact that Hisham in his last period (he was 71 at the time of his last trip to Iraq), for the sake of brevity, would say, "My father, from `A'isha? (abi `an `A'isha)" and no longer pronounced, "narrated to me (haddathani)".


Al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (30:238) explained that it became a foregone conclusion for the Iraqis that Hisham did not narrate anything
from his father except what he had heard directly from him.


Ibn Hajar also dismisses the objections against Hisham ibn `Urwa as negligible in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (11:45), saying: "It was clear enough to the Iraqis that he did not narrate from his father other than what he had heard directly from him".


In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn `Urwa are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is major nonsense as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu `Umar al-Nakha`i who was from Kufa, and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu`ba in Basra, all of whom narrated from Hisham!

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)


An outright lie, on the contrary, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal (4:301 #9233) states: "Hisham ibn `Urwa, one of the eminent personalities. A Proof in himself, and an Imam. However, in his old age his memory diminished, but he certainly never became confused. Nor should any attention be paid to what Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan said about him and Suhayl ibn Abi Salih becoming confused or changing! Yes, the man changed a little bit and his memory was not the same as it had been in his younger days, so that he forgot some of what he had memorized or lapsed, so what? Is he immune to forgetfulness? [p. 302] And when he came to Iraq in the last part of his life he narrated a great amount of knowledge, in the course of which are a few narrations in which he did not excel, and such as occurs also to Malik, and Shu`ba, and Waki`, and the major trustworthy masters. So spare yourself confusion and floundering, do not make mix the firmly-established Imams with the weak and muddled narrators. Hisham is a Shaykh al-Islam. But may Allah console us well of you, O Ibn al-Qattan, and the same with regard to `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khirash's statement from Malik!"


continued below
 
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijra. 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 Hijra.


Not true. The hadith Masters, Sira historians, and Qur'anic commentators agree that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy Prophet's (upon him blessings and peace) Hijra to Madina.

Thus it is confirmed that our Mother `Aisha was born between seven and eight years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jariya or little girl five years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Surat al-Qamar was revealed was around 2 or 3.


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.


A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or 7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation.

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.


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.


According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was ten years older than Ayesha.


Well, Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, and he is more reliable here.


It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha, 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.


Ibn Hajar reports in al-Isaba from Hisham ibn `Urwa, from his father, that Asma' did live 100 years, and from Abu Nu`aym al-Asbahani that "Asma' bint Abi Bakr was born 27 years before the Hijra, and she lived until the beginning of the year 74." None of this amounts to any proof for `A'isha's age whatsoever.


Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr, reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha 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.


Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.


According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab.


Nowhere does Ibn Hisham say this.

This shows that Ayesha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha should not have been born during the first year of Islam.


Rather, Ibn Hisham lists `A'isha among "those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." This does not mean that she embraced Islam during the first year of Islam. Nor does it mean that she necessarily embraced Islam before `Umar (year 6) although she was born the previous year (year 7 before the Hijra) although it is understood she will automatically follow her father's choice even before the age of reason.


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 was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra).


Not at all, there is no mention of emigration in Tabari's account of Abu Bakr's discussion with Mut`im. Nor did he ever ask him to take `A'isha because there had been only some preliminary talk, not a formal arrangement. Umm Ruman, Abu Bakr's wife, reportedly said: "By Allah, no promise had been given on our part at all!" Rather, al-Tabari said that when news of the Prophet's interest in `A'isha came, he went to see Mut`im. Then Mut`im's wife manifested her fear that her son would become Muslim if he married into Abu Bakr's family. Abu Bakr then left them and gave his assent to the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace.

Now, if Ayesha 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 had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.


Your assumption fizzles at the root when you read al-Tabari's positive assertion: "On the day he consummated the marriage with her, she was nine years old."


According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet 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 asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed 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, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

This is ignorant nonsense, bikr means a virgin girl, a girl who has never been married even if her age is 0 and there is no unclarity here whatsoever.


According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah was five years older than Ayesha. Fatimah is reported to have been born when the Prophet was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha 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.


Rather, Ibn Hajar mentions two versions: (1) al-Waqidi's narration that Fatima was born when the Prophet was 35; and (2) Ibn `Abd al-Barr's narration that she was born when he was 41, approximately one year more or less before Prophethood, and about five years before `A'isha was born. The latter version matches the established dates.


So our Mother `A'isha was nineteen to twenty years younger than her sister Asma' (b. 27 before Hijra-d. 74) and about five years to eight years Fatima's junior.


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 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.


Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.

continued below
Hajj Gibril

Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet


Basically what we should look to is that, back in those days there was nothing wrong with such a marriage and the whole world practiced it
 
The future of Islam is rooted in its past: Alevism and Sufism. And do not forget Sikhism (the only monotheistic religion that does not prophecy an apocalypse) and Bahaism (the only major monotheistic group that holds God's Kingdom is here and now) are children of Islam (like Islam and Christianity are of Judaism).

The problem is fundamentalism (in all of the groups listed above). The Holy Writ is not the Logos. The Light Within, the Inner Christ, the Spirit of Adonai, the HU does not depend on the work of man (which Holy Writ must be). Childish and selfish things like a Third Temple, a Caliphate, an Apocalypse must be set aside and a Gandian viewpoint where that of God in everyone can be percieved must be taken up.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark


The future of Islam is Bright; infact it couldn't be brighter, for the whole world will literally be under islamic rule [Allahuakbar!] and all the people of the world will be Muslim :):

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/signs-of-the-last-day-7438.html

now some may say that this is just wishfull thinking of a Muslim, but so far those 'signs' in that link have come true, e.g., the Christians have indeed taken over the world and become it's rulers and are going on to consolidate their power..., so it is quite credible that once they've advanced near to Medinah, the tide will begin to turn! :p


009.033
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
 
The future of Islam is Bright; infact it couldn't be brighter, for the whole world will literally be under islamic rule [Allahuakbar!] and all the people of the world will be Muslim :):

would that be sunni, shia, sufi or bahai ?
 
The future of Islam is Bright; infact it couldn't be brighter, for the whole world will literally be under islamic rule [Allahuakbar!] and all the people of the world will be Muslim :):

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/signs-of-the-last-day-7438.html

now some may say that this is just wishfull thinking of a Muslim, but so far those 'signs' in that link have come true, e.g., the Christians have indeed taken over the world and become it's rulers and are going on to consolidate their power..., so it is quite credible that once they've advanced near to Medinah, the tide will begin to turn! :p


009.033
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

And i'd like to add too, that far from the above being blind zealotry and a sense of wanting to impose Islam over all others, the 'happiness' it portrays is merely due to, the above equating to masses of people being saved from the Hell Fire and peace and justice prevailing in the world! :)
 
Back
Top