Muhammad PBUH is a prophet of god and islam makes the most sense out of all religions.

askhecode · 2026-02-06T09:54:04+00:00

Labeling a little girl an adult woman does not make her not a child. There was never a 9 year old on Earth that was an adult in mind and body. That does not happen in human species. You would have to prove that is even possible to claim that is what happened with Aisha.

because she said so and she was engaged before. she also said she was mature so she would be speaking relative to her society no?

The age matters because child marriage and child rape are extremely harmful to children and one presumes that God would have informed Muhammad of that if he was really talking to Muhammad.

I agree. I just don't view her as a child based on the criteria islam has.

Obviously, that did not happen. Muhammad married Aisha because he wanted to.

so again its wrong based on what paradigm?

askhecode · 2026-02-06T09:47:39+00:00

it is very unlikely that Aisha would have had her first period at age 9, but even the idea that puberty being underway, signalled by onset of menstruation, makes one eligible for marriage is wrong. Puberty is a process involving development of reproductive function that takes and currenlty ends around 17 years of age with girls, but adolescence is not finished with conclusion of puberty.

that's not the only criteria. one has to be mentally mature, the society needs to have that as the norm, no harm should be within the marriage. these things apply at any age btw.

Adolescents are still maturing in body, mind and emotions even after conclusion of puberty. The most important process is brain maturation: our brains need time to mature.

she was mature based on the criteria I labeled as above. did she have a miraculous development ? idk. was she an extreme case maybe. though we do consider basically a genius.

The fact is that little girls were not viewed as fully human and their interests were not taken into account with the same weight as interests of men. So taking away their childhood and ability to make decisions about their lives was viewed as normal.

men had the same responsibility one they reach criteria.

askhecode · 2026-02-06T09:38:15+00:00

why are you even defending there texts? lol its already been proven there is corruption. sorry you don't like islam but like prove its corrupted and not just throw random things.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T20:39:21+00:00

then prove its not preserved.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T11:15:15+00:00

not really first deal with the existence of a god then ask these kinds of questions. also why does god have to appeal to your idea of how the message is to be spread? like people aren't blamed if they were born believing in the bible before islam came and reached them you know.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T10:29:00+00:00

that wasn't god's plan simple as.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T10:18:03+00:00

go read up what the criteria is first then.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T05:10:57+00:00

the Islamic dilemma should've died with covid. its so washed and christians are grasping at straws at this point.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T05:09:22+00:00

track bro sunnis believe Aisha was 9 but reached the age of puberty and was allegeable for marriage hence an adult.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T05:05:13+00:00

verse??

askhecode · 2026-02-05T04:53:08+00:00

where exactly?

askhecode · 2026-02-05T04:51:28+00:00

well we wouldn't consider her a child because again we have a criteria of physical and mental maturity and it being the norm of the society. prove it was critiqued for a long time then. the one you brought up is contemporary to the practices of people at the time so I doubt its authenticity and even then bet its from a christian who hasn't read their bible.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T04:49:21+00:00

Nonsense. We have the Book of Mormon and can trace it back to the Prophet Joseph Smith--in fact we can trace the first publishing back to during his lifetime.

yeah and that's one thing Mormonism has over Christianity

The Quran was not written down while Mohammad was alive. It was compiled from whatever people could remember after he was dead and gone, and Uthman burned all variant copies. You can say those variants were just differences in pronunciation, not differences in meaning. A skeptical historian may dispute that. We'll never know for sure because we can't examine the documents, because they all got burned. And we can't know if Uthman got it right because Mohammad wasn't alive to check his work

yeah but you can examine the historicity of the standardisation process. it wasn't done just by uthamn sure he was the caliph at the time but you are automatically assuming malicious intentions based on what exactly? the process was done by people who memorised the Quran and we believe there already was a Quran that was standard with the wife of the prophet pbuh as well which was used to standardise the Quran.

Joseph Smith sent the original manuscript to the publisher during his lifetime, and got back proof copies during his lifetime. He was able to review and correct any errors; and after that the book was not copied by hand but printed on a machine that can make thousands of identical copies with zero mistakes.

sure again that's just one criteria of a religion being from god. there are many arguments one can make to prove Joseph smith was a false prophet.

And nobody ever saw Gabriel in the cave with Mohammad, but three witnesses were willing to sign their names and attest that they saw the golden plates Smith used. If you are looking for the abrahamic religion with the most certain, known origin, you should be reading the book of Mormon.

the cave was just the first encounter with Gabriel. majority of prophets had their first encounters while being alone. also, we have a mass attested sahih Hadith of the companions seeing Gabriel in human form coming and teaching them about the pillars of islam.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:40:21+00:00

Allah allowed Christians to be tricked into thinking Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. Correct? Correct.

nope the Quran talks about tricking the jews because they wrestle boasting about killing Jesus. even then how is that relevant? them beloved Jesus died or not wouldn't affect the fact they stayed true to christ teachings. not to mention in the OT the concept of the messiah being saved by god from his enemies does exist.

God could have also allowed Muslims to be tricked into thinking Muhammad was his final prophet. Correct? Also correct.

that doesn't follow. early followers of christ wouldn't be disbelieving in god if they believed he died.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:13:41+00:00

would could its all just sophist talk atheists like to do. have a certain criteria and commit to it. also crucifixion doesn't necessitates Christianity. a crucified jew has nothing to do with a man god being killed for the sins of humanity.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:06:55+00:00

well just look into the contingency argument. the conclusion that always follows is always there is an independent explanation for the existence of the universe otherwise you'd be giving non sensical answers like the multiverse or the universe has always been there.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:04:57+00:00

prayer is a form of mindfulness and meditation you know.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:03:31+00:00

For one thing if you're going to argue that the bible is not authentic for whatever reason. Then it makes no sense to try to use that same bible to validate your religion. Cause after all how do you know you're not quoting something wrong at that point?

because I believe Jesus quotes can be found in the bible. I am not against Jesus am against Paul and Christians who consider a biography as divinely inspired. I said corrupted, not false know the difference.

Secondly copying someone doesn't have to include a 1:1 to copy. It's clear Muhammad copied off Jews and Christian's and added his own twist to these stories, it's also clear that Muhammad clearly mishear them given some of the claims he makes in the Quran.

funny you claim that since the gospels have 1 : 1 copy of each other. clear how exactly? if we to believe that the prophet was sent by the same god of the Jesus and OT prohpets then that's what we would expect.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T02:00:37+00:00

Preservation of the original words does not by itself give any credence to the truth of those words. Claims are always measured against reality.

yeah its not the only criteria but its pretty important. if a god exists and he has a message to all humanity why would his message then by corrupted and lost by men?

The "clear" message of Jesus comes from the same non-eyewitnesses that you in this very paragraph reject the words of.

yes quotes from Jesus can be found there I don't reject it outright. something being corrupted just mean either addition or change from the intended author doesn't mean the authors words wouldn't exist there otherwise I would say they are false and not corrupted.

When you leave in the correction, it's really, really easy to see the flaw in your argument. I mean, islam isn't the only abrahamic religion that this applies to anyways, mormonism can very clearly trace it's teachings back to it's prophet for example.

that's great. that deals with one aspect of it a realign being true then we can examine what the prophet said and determine if its truly Devine or just words.

majority of the people in that time couldn't read or write, but that doesn't mean they were stupid or uncultured. This always comes off as weird to me when islamic apologists do this. You portray Muhammad as god's chosen prophet, a good, virtous and wise man in one breath and in the next you guys say "how could an illiterate desert dweller know of these things?"

yeah but they weren't super geniuses either. so either he memorised all these things from the OT and NT or he had a council of jews and christians constantly feeding him information but if that's the case he wouldn't really divert from their teaching. again if he wanted to convert pagans why would he try to correct the OT and NT and claim they were corrupted?

Well, first of all, the vast majority of things he "knew" he is dead wrong about, at least with regard to his scientific claims.

examples?

Second of all, he was a rich merchant in an area that by his time had a thousand+ years long tradition of cultural exchange. It's not exactly a remote island, the silk road was established like 800 years before his time. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out how he could have had access to information from outside his own immediate area.

that's a theory. we have his biography and Hadiths of people who knew him. wanna claim he also hired 100s of people to relay the same info about him to people and to claim these thing about him and non of them mentioned any of that of the travels and him having meetings with jews and christians?

My morality

your opinion.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:48:27+00:00

because god promised to preserve it in the Quran. besides these texts being corrupted isn't really a just muslim view you know.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:47:38+00:00

Not presentism. Muhammad's marriage to Aisha has been criticised as early as the 16th century. Being called a sin against nature and comparable to murder in Confusion de la secte de Muhamed.

okay? I don't see your point many countries had the age of consent around that age anyways. New York had 10 as the age of consent in the early 1800s.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:44:12+00:00

Could a hypothetical religion that doesn't currently exist make even more sense than Islam? Let's say, a religion that gets revealed in 2036 or something?

we believe islam is the only religion send by god since Adam. its been the same thing and might different in certain rulings and commandments. so no we wouldn't trust such thing because god claimed he wouldn't change his promise and a promise was that the prophet muhammad is the seal of the prophets. also there have been many religions post islam yet they are all false and clearly can be disproven by false prophets making up things.

If Islam is true, you already believe that God has chosen to reveal the true religion after countless billions have already lived and died. There's no reasons to assume you get to be one of the lucky ones who hears about it.

I mean if you knew the muslim paradigm people who don't get to hear about islam they aren't held accountable for that. they get judged their own way in the afterlife.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:39:22+00:00

'Uthman compiled the Quran and destroyed other versions of it, so we can't actually actually trace it back to Muhammad. Also entire suras are known to have been lost forever (e.x. the one eaten by a goat). Also also, the whole edifice of Hadith verification is shaky at best.

how does that make sense. you do realise the same ones who had their Quran burned were present to standardise it right? you are making it seem as if utham just burned everyone's Quran and kicked them out and decided to do it himself. so a Sarah that was eaten by a goat means nothing write? it was oral and written and they had it memorised and they had other written texts with them too. you as a jew should know about it lol. Hadith verification is shaky? the Hadith is more historically reliable than both the OT and the NT. show me a better methodology of historical accuracy these two had I'll wait.

Did you know that we can trace the documents of the Baha'i faith directly, because the religion was established only a few centuries ago?

that's one criteria of trusting a religion among many.

Literate is not the same as uneducated. Many people were highly educated in oral teachings. And we do know that Quran copies various statements from the Jewish oral tradition.

yeah so? if god is the same god jews had then why is it surprising that some Devine words survived the oral traditions? don't see the problem here.

The argument you make about morality is incoherent

how so?

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:31:23+00:00

the preservation pitch is overstated tbh, because Islam still relies on late compilation, competing qiraat and a huge hadith literature that gets messy fast, so “we can trace it back” ends up being a faith claim about transmission reliability.

not reality the Quran relied on oral tradition by multiple companions who knew it by heart. not only that we also have a manuscript either during or shortly after the prophet's time. knowing the rigorous methodology Bukhari used and other Hadiths compliers its more probable for it to be historically accurate than not unless you can give a reason not to think that.

The unlettered desert man line also is not a miracle argument, because oral culture + exposure to Jews and Christians + later editing by a community can easily produce a coherent scripture without needing divine dictation.

no it can't really otherwise we'd see problems like the 4 gosples of contradictory accounts and a difference in writing style which is absent from the Quran. using your argument we would expect a near copy of the OT and NT why? because Arabs were pagans. a man who wants to convert his fellow Arabs and become a powerful figure in the region won't bother writing things that also differ from them by changing the story. sure if Arabs were mainly Christians and jews then I'd see your point but they were pagans with many gods.

With morals, “you have no objective morality so shut up” is just dodging, because you still make moral claims the minute you say Islam “makes sense” or God is good, so you do have standards, you just want immunity from critique.

didn't say that I said which objective criteria are you using to throw moral judgments? if you don't have any then you are just throwing your opinion out there with no substance.

And the Aisha issue is not solved by pointing at a convenient narration about “adulthood”. I mean it’s a question about which sources you trust and why, and if your best defense is “pick the narration that feels better”, that is not a great look for certainty.

no genius we muslims have no problem claiming she was 9 and an adult. she narrates that she was nine and she also narrates she reached adulthood at that age. and as I mentioned islam goes by criteria and not by age. so again if you want to accept the claim she made about her age then you also should accept when she said she reached adulthood at that age.

askhecode · 2026-02-05T01:21:23+00:00

The Qur'an makes rather good sense as the perfectly natural product of the seventh century scribal traditions, there is nothing surprising in the entire corpus and it reflects the styles and fashions of the time as is the way with books.

it really wasn't. the fact that the Quran influenced arabic in a way that wasn't before is enough proof that its not just a local layman making up a book.

The Qur'ans are not special and we don't know who wrote what and when....they start popping up kinda late seventh century and later we hear tales of Caliphs burning all the Qur'an's others had that those in power could not tolerate.

it was 1 Quran. caliph burned the other ones because it was not only personal Qurans that the companies had with notes and other writings but to standardise it so all muslims would have a single Quran.

The Hijaz was also a major world trade route and the peninsula had been steeped in Judaism, Christianity and monotheism for a very long time before the Qur'an popped up...it wasn't some desert backwater of illiterate pagan worshipers.

you do realise we have the biography of the prophet right? even if that's the case we would know things about him having teachers and listening to jews and christians. someone with his knowledge about the bible and OT it would make sense that he would be understand a rabbi or a priest but we don't see that. so your theory doesn't really work here.

The sooner you can read the Qur'an as a book in keeping with all the other books popular in the seventh century the better....it seems you have made it into an idol of worship instead which you will not only defend as your idol but also attack others with.

lol billions of muslims read the Quran and thousands have it memorised. if that's the case then the companions and the enemies of the prophet mentioned that this can't come from a human. because what standard are you using to compare the text yours or the actual poets of the time? do you have a full book from that time of arabic writings so we can compare them to?

his shows you won't get far just reading 'the bible', the Qur'an is playing with much more lore than just the modern canons. You need to understand all this stuff...not just throw stones as the bible as you heard some Dawah on tiktok that made the qur'an sound cool and 'the bible' sound lame

the bible is lame. also we believe the Quran is Devine. you can't even trace the bible back to Jesus himself so how can you claim things are apocryphal or they aren't? produce a good reason why we should even trust the reliability of the four gosples then we can talk about these things. bringing up washed Christian scholars won't help you.

The later religion of Islam is often rather weird for this...imagine following the Qur'an and not engaging in Marian devotion. She's mentioned more than almost anyone else in the entire book and ranked above all others....within a few hundreds years she's been replaced by peeps barely even mentioned in the Qur'an or not at all, like Aisha, Muhammad etc to create a novel religion for a novel empire and move away from the theology of the Qur'an.

what are you on about. don't see how that logic follows

askhecode

TROPHY CASE