- Joined
- Mar 15, 2025
- Messages
- 1,434
I wasn't in that thread for its entire duration. I also wasn't asked to post physique cause I wasn't calling other people weak because I'm not insecureYou didnt either, you pussied out.
I wasn't in that thread for its entire duration. I also wasn't asked to post physique cause I wasn't calling other people weak because I'm not insecureYou didnt either, you pussied out.
Not my hands sadly. You'll know what they look like when I give you a comforting hug, Son. My shoulder is broad such that you may rest upon it.You have feminine hands, son. Don't talk too much. Pussy ass slut.
Insane how, just like I said would happen, Niggerior Z and his ball washers NEED to tranny nuke my posts. They NEED to decrease my reddit karma to make themselves feel better about being wastes of hydrocarbons. Crazy! And look, I will gaze into the future like the oracle of Delphi, it will happen again to this post and my future posts until Warrior Z is kicked off the website for being a jar-topper towelhead camelfucking sandniggerCouldn't respond to last thread, makes me sad! @Warrior-Z Pork loin linked below, I'm sure Oslo tugboat never gave you enough money to eat like this. Maybe if you left your coom cave, and made friends with real humans other than your clan of sissy retard ballwashers (who will inevitably jartynuke this post because they don't possess the neural mass to think anything you haven't thought for them), you'd be able to try food like this for free!View attachment 182335View attachment 182336
So it wasn't even your image?Not my hands sadly.
I'll give YOU a comforting hug my daughter, perhaps I might even go get you some ice-cream if you're on your best behaviour.You'll know what they look like when I give you a comforting hug, Son.
I'm afraid you'll have a lot of woke to do before you can say yours is broad, for now, rest upon mine.My shoulder is broad such that you may rest upon it.
He's seething over reddit points GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGInsane how, just like I said would happen, Niggerior Z and his ball washers NEED to tranny nuke my posts. They NEED to decrease my reddit karma to make themselves feel better about being wastes of hydrocarbons. Crazy! And look, I will gaze into the future like the oracle of Delphi, it will happen again to this post and my future posts until Warrior Z is kicked off the website for being a jar-topper towelhead camelfucking sandnigger
>Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
View attachment 182342
>"muslim" arbitrarily agrees with a random google doc on the internet instead of 99% of muslims scholars in the worldI will really juggle you in VC on this topic faggot.![]()
Dolmatov, M
Aisha was not 9 years old but (19–20) years old when married to Holy Prophet Muhammad (s) 9 years age of Aisha which you point out is not mentioned in Holy Quran - verbatim words of God but It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. This hadith is simply fabricated lie | Sahih Bukhari is not verbatim w...docs.google.com
That's a strawman fallacy of the document, it uses sources written by historians during the caliphate.>"muslim" arbitrarily agrees with a random google doc on the internet instead of 99% of muslims scholars in the world
ngmi lil bro just seek christ
ultimately relies on several hasan and daif verses to piece together some contradiction with direct sahih testimony. this is like saying A, who was found with the bloody murder weapon, couldn't have murdered B because A's cousin's brother remember A one time saying "murder is bad". absolutely reachingThat's a strawman fallacy of the document, it uses sources written by historians during the caliphate.
We’re talking about historical analysis where cross-referencing is literally the foundation of credibility. You think quoting one sahih hadith overrides multiple early historians, timelines, and logical deduction? That's not scholarship, it's cherry-picking. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, notes that all four children of Abu Bakr, including Aisha RA, were born before Islam (i.e., pre-610 AD).ultimately relies on several hasan and daif verses to piece together some contradiction with direct sahih testimony. this is like saying A, who was found with the bloody murder weapon, couldn't have murdered B because A's cousin's brother remember A one time saying "murder is bad". absolutely reaching
View attachment 182343
you're cherrypicking by stringing together a number of less reliable verses to get around a simple fact of reality that every other muzzie on the planet has accepted. it's why iraq tried lowering the age of marriage to 9 in 2024, it's why saudi had no age of marriage until 2019. the only reason you feel the need to deny reality and hold onto this cope fantasy is because of the influence of christian moralityWe’re talking about historical analysis where cross-referencing is literally the foundation of credibility. You think quoting one sahih hadith overrides multiple early historians, timelines, and logical deduction? That's not scholarship, it's cherry-picking. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, notes that all four children of Abu Bakr, including Aisha RA, were born before Islam (i.e., pre-610 AD).
View attachment 182344
>every other muzzie on the planet has acceptedyou're cherrypicking by stringing together a number of less reliable verses to get around a simple fact of reality that every other muzzie on the planet has accepted. it's why iraq tried lowering the age of marriage to 9 in 2024, it's why saudi had no age of marriage until 2019. the only reason you feel the need to deny reality and hold onto this cope fantasy is because of the influence of christian morality
Literally all three of these scholars affirm her age of marriage and consummation as per the two traditional (and most reliable) hadiths.You mean like all the Muslims who literally cite Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Kathir, and others who say Aisha was born before the call? Or are we just pretending Islamic scholarship began and ended with one hadith and Twitter?
>blah blah nicki minaj or something.. yeahYou do know modern politics doesn't equate to revelation, right? Iraq also legalized alcohol, and Saudi lets in Nicki Minaj to twerk on stage.
You keep crying “cherrypicking,” but I gave historical timelines, family ages, and scholarly sourcing.
Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat is literally a compilation of reports and traditions from various transmitters. He doesn’t verify each one. That’s not what tabaqat literature is about. Also, he doesn’t even comment on its reliability. He just transmits it, like dozens of other contradictory reports in his work. Same text also says Fatima was older than Aisha RA by 10+ years.Literally all three of these scholars affirm her age of marriage and consummation as per the two traditional (and most reliable) hadiths.
- ibn sa'd affirms it in tabaqat al kubra volume 8 (https://dn721604.ca.archive.org/0/i...ir_Volume_VIII_The_Women_of_Madi_Muhammad.pdf)
Nope, quotes it in another part of his book just like he quotes contradictory genealogies and contradictory stories about Adam AS and angels fighting dragons. He gathers ALL narrations and leaves it to scholars to analyze them.- al tabari affirms it in the history of prophets and kings
Again, Ibn Kathir quotes the narration. He doesn’t do isnad criticism on it.- ibn kathir affirms it in the book of the end
Not a dodge when I used governments as an example too kek, in which contradicts the religion.>blah blah nicki minaj or something.. yeah
excellent dodge
the same text doesn't say that aisha was in her late teens like you claimedIbn Sa’d’s Tabaqat is literally a compilation of reports and traditions from various transmitters. He doesn’t verify each one. That’s not what tabaqat literature is about. Also, he doesn’t even comment on its reliability. He just transmits it, like dozens of other contradictory reports in his work. Same text also says Fatima was older than Aisha RA by 10+ years.
Nope, quotes it in another part of his book just like he quotes contradictory genealogies and contradictory stories about Adam AS and angels fighting dragons. He gathers ALL narrations and leaves it to scholars to analyze them.
OBVIOUSLY the main purpose of the books is to compile narration, but they absolutely critically evaluated hadith and offered theories as part of those works. If a historian is quoting a narration that affirms the 6/9 claim and mentions NO countermanding theory, that's an affirmation of the two narrations as the most reliable historical sources and explanation for the questionAgain, Ibn Kathir quotes the narration. He doesn’t do isnad criticism on it.
You used governments as an example to call them woke to say that "advocating for child marriage doesn't matter in this case because i said so"Not a dodge when I used governments as an example too kek, in which contradicts the religion.
Think harder, Alex.
It doesn't need to if we can draw a logical inference. The same text gives us the substance for that.the same text doesn't say that aisha was in her late teens like you claimed
W concessionOBVIOUSLY the main purpose of the books is to compile narration,
They aren't critically evaluated if it's all of them INCLUDING the contradictory ones.but they absolutely critically evaluated hadith
The only theory that involves a P and not P would be EMR.and offered theories as part of those works.
Just because they included a narration doesn’t mean they took an oath on it. Otherwise, I guess Ibn Kathir must've also believed in talking trees, and sun setting in a muddy spring.... Kek, it's kino.If a historian is quoting a narration that affirms the 6/9 claim and mentions NO countermanding theory, that's an affirmation of the two narrations as the most reliable historical sources and explanation for the question
No, early scholars debated narrations all the time. Malik rejected ahad hadith that conflicted with ‘amal of Medina. Abu Hanifa prioritized Qur’an and analogical reasoning over certain solitary hadiths. Even Bukhari didn’t accept every sahih hadith.All of these narrations were available and had their reliability evaluated at the time of these scholars,
They did; in their other books lol.if they wanted to offer a counter theory they could've,
Missed the whole point, I said modern government policies are irrelevant to seerah analysis.You used governments as an example to call them woke to say that "advocating for child marriage doesn't matter in this case because i said so"
they don't contradict. there are no other verses that state aisha's age of marriage aside from the two reliable verses in sahih muslim and sahih al bukhari.They aren't critically evaluated if it's all of them INCLUDING the contradictory ones.
this is a profoundly retarded thing to sayJust because they included a narration doesn’t mean they took an oath on it. Otherwise, I guess Ibn Kathir must've also believed in talking trees, and sun setting in a muddy spring.... Kek, it's kino.
>these narrations = all narrationsNo, early scholars debated narrations all the time. Malik rejected ahad hadith that conflicted with ‘amal of Medina. Abu Hanifa prioritized Qur’an and analogical reasoning over certain solitary hadiths. Even Bukhari didn’t accept every sahih hadith.
They never did, you're lying.They did; in their other books lol.
You missed my whole point that the effect of muzzie's culture of child marriage resulting in pro-child marriage policies by modern governments indicates it's position as ingrained scholarly consensus in the caliphatesMissed the whole point, I said modern government policies are irrelevant to seerah analysis.
Nigger crying about strawmenThat's a strawman fallacy of the document, it uses sources written by historians during the caliphate.
Like I said, they don't need to explicitly state a proposition if the proposition in question is already contradicted. That logically and morally would be irrational. By that logic, every contradiction in early hadith and seerah would cancel itself out because nobody said “imo” before transmitting it.they don't contradict. there are no other verses that state aisha's age of marriage aside from the two reliable verses in sahih muslim and sahih al bukhari.
>“hey didn’t say ‘some say this,’ therefore they believed it 100%! SAAR I VVIN! TOTAL CHRISTSLIME WIN!this is a profoundly retarded thing to say
the wording of the claim is very obvious. ibn sa'd doesn't say "some people say aisha's age of marriage was 6" or "according to some verses", he states it as fact, because there is NO directly contradictory verse OR contradictory theory being presented, he's presenting it as reliable historical information
I already addressed this, now you're just doing a reductio ad nauseam. It's directly denied if their historical beliefs and studies contradict this. It's a P and not P.>these narrations = all narrations
what is this pathetic dodge? the verses in question were accepted as fact by all of these scholars, that's why they didn't propose any contradictory theory
They did? The historical referencing in question cites those books, are you dumb, faggot?They never did, you're lying.
Oh, so because some corrupt or backwater "Muslim" governments today push child marriage laws, that means all classical scholars were pro-child marriage? Again, a lot of their actions contradict Islam so this just gives them less authority, retard.You missed my whole point that the effect of muzzie's culture of child marriage resulting in pro-child marriage policies by modern governments indicates it's position as ingrained scholarly consensus in the caliphates
I will juggle you too faggot ass pedophile.Nigger crying about strawmenAll soyjaks are strawmen, go back