Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the differences between Jizya and Zakat, according to Wikipedia:

Zakat
obligatory upon Muslims
net worth of assets must exceed the Nisab (excess money for personal need) for Zakat to be obligatory
only payable on assets continuously owned over one lunar year that are in excess of the Nisab
the amount of Zakat paid is fixed and specified by Sharee'ah
paid only by the owner of the assets himself/herself
refusal to pay Zakat has no specific punishment by Sharee'ah law in life; punishment is delayed to the end time[35]
should be paid seeking God's pleasure [Qur'an 30:39]


Jizya
obligatory upon Dhimmis
required even if the Dhimmi's wealth or property does not exceed Nisab
paid according to a contract, but usually paid yearly regardless of Nisab
the amount paid is not fixed or specified by Sharee'ah, but is at least one gold Dinar with no maximum amount [32][33]
paid by all able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power[34]
refusal to pay Jizya is considered a breach of The Dhimma contract; as a consequence the Dhimmi's blood (life) and assets would become permissible[36]
is a tax on non-Muslims.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat


Once again, what Muslims *claim* about Islam is different from what is actually practiced around the world. Jizya has often been used as an excuse to confiscate Christian and minority property in an unfair way.

Separating people into different groups under the law is, and always will be, a lousy idea. Ever heard of "separate but equal?" Segregation laws? And guess what, people enforcing those laws always had some rationale that it was "fair" or "better for everyone." This type of system invites inequality, discrimination, and worse. This, by itself, should be enough to convince a person that Islam is not perfect. No religion should be dictating laws.

If you want to have a serious discussion about Islam, please refrain from quoting Sheikh Wikipedia. The web is full of salafists, wahabists,fatwa lovers, islam bashers, ect. The most reliable and authentic sources of information about Islam is of course the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s Hadiths, that's what Muslims live by, not wikipedia. Islamic Figh (jurisprudence) is very complex, as the rules are not static. For every situation, the Fiqh can change depending on the person's specific circumstances~

If you want to have a serious discussion, start with acknowledging that "salafists, wahhabists, fatwa lovers etc." have as much tafsir on their side, along with voluminous scholarship, as your peace-loving interpretation. Islam's stance on religious minorities is more progressive than Christianity, but the fact of the matter is that in Islamic state and in the Shariatic discourse, a Muslim and a non-Muslim are not equal. They are not. They differ in their rights and they differ in their privileges, which are decidedly on the side of the Muslims. Sheikh Wikipedia may be a lousy source, but Umar's dhimma agreement is not, and and its language ain't at all pretty toward minorities.

Then, it is usually never mentioned that Islamic tolerance toward minorities applies to only two of them: Christians and Jews. Everyone else is not included in the protected class.

Well context dear, what a beautiful thing. Islamophobes attempt to deceive people by quoting out of context and in a manner that suits their desires.Many people read the Quran without understanding the context. English translations of the Quran either give no context, or a limited context.Context has to do with four principles: literal meaning (what the words say), the historical setting , the events in which the words were used, who were the words addressed to and how those words were understood at that time, the grammatical structure of the passage and synthesis, comparing it with other passages in the Quran for a fuller meaning. All of these things refer to context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kind of errors and misunderstandings. Sadly, taking passages out of context, giving some more importance than they deserved, and misinterpreting them for their own reasons was initiated by the Orientalists and built upon, not only by the Media but also, verses were and are used out of context even by Muslims to justify individual or group actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I have lived in both Muslims and Non Muslim countries, I have never ever met a Muslim woman who was forced to cover her head, not one. .

If you haven't encountered societies where there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women and their families, then I do not believe that you have lived in Muslim countries.

Ok, so if there are serious social costs attached to non-covered women, then the religion is to blame? How more narrow-minded can you be? The religion itself guarantees free will to each and every human being, this is a right that the Creator Himself bestowed upon His creation. The fact that societies and human beings do not follow this has nothing to do with Islam. Again Muslims are not perfect beings, they come in all shapes and forms like every other person on the planet!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, thanks for stating this so eloquently. I was taught as much at university. Islam grew out of an Arabian trading culture and many of the traditions are specific to that culture. The Koran is God's own words, as transmitted to Mohammed. Therefore, every line is perfect. This has created small-scale problems interpreting difficult individual verses. But the real tragedy for Islam is that the inviolability of the Quran has made it (almost) impossible to have the sort of Reformation that Western Europe experienced.

Ironically enough, the only place where you will find more critical thinking - not completely, understand that - but to extent, is in Iran. This is because in the Sunni tradition, interpretation of religious texts rests on scholarly consensus, and overruling what two hundred turbans said before you is very difficult. The Shia tradition relies on individual interpretation, and Shia Muslims are free to follow the scholar they like best. This is why, for instance, IVF clinics in Sunni countries do not allow donation of genetic material extraneous to husband or wife, as traditionally this is tantamount to adultery. In Iran, though, the Shia scholars found a way to see donation as allowable, and so IVF clinics in Teheran or Beirut accept both sperm and egg donation.

False! All Muslims are free to follow whatever scholar they agree with if there is a difference of opinion. The blessed prophet saw said, "Difference (of opinion) in my Ummah are a blessing." He didn't mean that Muslims should argue about everything or be divided, rather, he was pointing out that it was good for Muslims to think, to reason together, to discuss things and that if they disagreed over something, that it was all in the pursuit of knowledge. We are blessed as a community in that we have our original book and the complete record of the life of our prophet. If anyone comes and says, "This or that is Islam," we can easily check and verify whether or not it's true. If it doesn't come from the Qur'an or Hadith, then it can't be Islam. So we must use those two sources to explain what Islam really is. Sincere people seek to learn and practice the truth and Allah guides those who seek him. Anything else is opinion.On many occasions Muslims have disagreed over what something means or what to do. The key is to follow the Islamic manners of how to deal with differences. We don't have to agree all the time, but we don't fight over disagreements as if we were enemies. If we have a disagreement, especially between the followers of one Madhab (School of Fiqh) and another, we must respect each other's opinions and present our evidence and each person is free to choose whatever they agree with!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:My child was screaming and kicking today for her 1st day of K. She really didn't want to stay. She's been in daycare and pre-school since she was 2 so I'm not sure why she developed this new separation anxiety but the teachers had to physically hold her in the classroom as she was trying to escape. Any tips from parents who've experienced this before?

drop them off quickly, say good bye and don't linger. they are usually fine within 5 min of you leaving. the longer you stick around the worse it is for everyone. You can try explaining that it is ok to be nervous and that everyone is nervous when they go to a new place. I do sympathize thought. It is so hard to leave them when they are like that. We went through this when my son entered pre-school and even at 5 he still gets this way when we leave him with a new sitter. He was fine at k drop off today, fingers crossed he has a good day.

That's what I try to do, I try to leave quickly but her dad doesn't have the heart to so he stays and tries to calm her down which I think makes it worse as she still cries when he leaves. I talked to her last night and this morning about it, but she still didn't want to stay once we got in school. I guess what I don't understand is if this is normal behavior for a child who used to go to preschool without any issues. Albeit, she didn't go to preschool this summer as she was traveling but still, it seems like she had a lot of anxiety about starting K and kept saying she didn't want to go or wanted me to stay in the classroom with her.

My child was screaming and kicking today for her 1st day of K. She really didn't want to stay. She's been in daycare and pre-school since she was 2 so I'm not sure why she developed this new separation anxiety but the teachers had to physically hold her in the classroom as she was trying to escape. Any tips from parents who've experienced this before?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

A few crucial points:
(1) a woman whose husband is dead or disabled is indeed "compelled" to work. This is true in many Muslim countries that have been plagued by war, where women and mothers with no other sources of family support, are indeed "compelled to work" and would, in fact, benefit from laws promoting equality.

Not in an islamic society. In an islamic state, the divorced/widowed woman is the responsibility of her father. If the father can't take care of her, then her brothers, or other relatives ect. So no in a pure shariah state unless the woman has no male relatives, she is never compelled to work, and of course if she doesn't have male relatives then the inheritance is hers....

(2) what you call being "compelled" to work is a source of great happiness for many women.
(3) one of the reasons US women earn less than men is they work in different jobs. Women are much more likely to go into teaching and nursing, for example.

Ugh.... You understand the meaning of "Compelled" right? Most Muslim women do CHOOSE to work freely but their money is 100% theirs to keep, they do not have to participate financially and can not be compelled to do so. Husbands on the other hand are obligated to support 100% their wives regardless of whether they work or not. Fathers are obligated to take care of their daughters 100% till they get married.

But surely you know all these things.... Since you claim you live in the US, it would be pretty much impossible to be oblivious to points #1-3. I don't understand a mindset that argues by denying the the obvious and expects that nobody will see through it. Do you cross your fingers and hope that nobody will challenge your statements?

You seem pretty confused.....

I think many of us are frustrated with your deliberately slippery, shallow arguing style. You pretend not to see obvious points and you provide shallow answers to reasonable questions. There's a lot to take on in your snide post above, but let's focus on the following:
1. Your response that a widow with no male family members to support her "gets the full inheritance" is not only glib and disrespectful to the people you're talking to on DCUM, it's incredibly cavalier about the plight of impoverished widows. Their situation is very common in wartime. So, what happens to the woman with NO male relatives and NO inheritance of any substance?
2. We all know that being dependent on someone else can be OK, or it can be fraught with emotional and financial difficulties.
3. Many of us disagree that discrimination against women is so ingrained that we should stop trying to seek change, and that instead we should ingrain patriarchal family and institutional structures.

Finally, your gratuitous insults are not welcome. Argue like an honest, mature adult. Thank you.

1. Your response that a widow with no male family members to support her "gets the full inheritance" is not only glib and disrespectful to the people you're talking to on DCUM, it's incredibly cavalier about the plight of impoverished widows. Their situation is very common in wartime. So, what happens to the woman with NO male relatives and NO inheritance of any substance?

The question posed was about inheritance, not about widows who dont have relatives or any substance. That is a pretty illogical question given that of course someone who doesn't have money or any family to rely on will get a job if they can and want. Otherwise, they become the responsibility of the islamic state and the muslims in that state to a greater extent. Islam is not an individualistic society like the West. The wellbeing of each and every Muslim is the responsibility of all in the state.

3. Many of us disagree that discrimination against women is so ingrained that we should stop trying to seek change, and that instead we should ingrain patriarchal family and institutional structures.

Yeh, discrimination that exists in your head, so pointless! I will repeat it over and over again. Islam doesn't discriminate against women. I am a Muslim woman and will choose the rules of Islam over any other rules, now you dont have to accept that because obviously you are not Muslim. But to tell me that I am being discriminated against by my Religion while I perfectly know I am not is kinda insulting. To think you care more about my situation and plight as a muslim woman is actually very odd! Whenever Women are being discriminated against in the muslim world, it has been because of action of Men not the religion, so get off of your high horses. Hundreds of Thousands of women are being discriminated against in the United States every single day, so have at it!

A few crucial points:
(1) a woman whose husband is dead or disabled is indeed "compelled" to work. This is true in many Muslim countries that have been plagued by war, where women and mothers with no other sources of family support, are indeed "compelled to work" and would, in fact, benefit from laws promoting equality.

Not in an islamic society. In an islamic state, the divorced/widowed woman is the responsibility of her father. If the father can't take care of her, then her brothers, or other relatives ect. So no in a pure shariah state unless the woman has no male relatives, she is never compelled to work, and of course if she doesn't have male relatives then the inheritance is hers....

(2) what you call being "compelled" to work is a source of great happiness for many women.
(3) one of the reasons US women earn less than men is they work in different jobs. Women are much more likely to go into teaching and nursing, for example.

Ugh.... You understand the meaning of "Compelled" right? Most Muslim women do CHOOSE to work freely but their money is 100% theirs to keep, they do not have to participate financially and can not be compelled to do so. Husbands on the other hand are obligated to support 100% their wives regardless of whether they work or not. Fathers are obligated to take care of their daughters 100% till they get married.

But surely you know all these things.... Since you claim you live in the US, it would be pretty much impossible to be oblivious to points #1-3. I don't understand a mindset that argues by denying the the obvious and expects that nobody will see through it. Do you cross your fingers and hope that nobody will challenge your statements?

You seem pretty confused.....

20:44 here. I seem to have offended you, and for that I'm sorry.

However, you repeatedly make glowing claims without providing the full picture. On this thread, you've made claims such as, "Islam offers asylum to prisoners of war" or "Islam offers inheritance rights to women."

I am not offended & I am also not the poster who was talking about inheritance rights of women ect.

I think it's important that people have full information so they can make informed decisions. Readers need to understand that "asylum" can mean "slavery for non-Muslims" and "rape for non-Muslim women." They also need to understand that "giving women inheritance rights" means "women get 1/2 the share that men get." And that these are rules are in the Quran, so they are for all time.

This is false. I already explained why women get 1/2 of inheritance, if that doesn't satisfy you well I can't help. As a Muslim woman I am fully satisfied and btw just so you know since you keep repeating women get half , women getting half is not true across the board. In some cases t men and women take an equal sum of inheritance, like for instance the father and the mother of the deceased take an equal amount of inheritance. About your 2nd point, false again..Islam forbids rape in all cases as it is a major sin in the category of adultery. The Quran says:

Whoever among you cannot find the means to marry free, believing women, then he may marry from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls, and Allah is most knowing about your faith. You believers are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be chaste, neither of those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take secret lovers - Surah An-Nisa 4:25

This passage lays down in an unequivocal manner that sexual relations with female slaves are permitted only on the basis of marriage, and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women.

And:

let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

And:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your slaves to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Bottom line is; Outside of Islam, slaves were treated like slaves, they were beaten, tortured, insulted and worked beyond their capacity - with no chance of freedom. When Islam came, it liberated slaves, it gave them rights, and slowly but surely opened a way to abolish slavery. It did the best it could given the circumstance it was revealed to mankind. There came a period during the 3rd Caliphate where slavery was surely looking to end, however it's unfortunate that the greed of people got the better of them, and they continue'd the practice which no doubt was to end, had people followed the teachings of Islam.

Islam is the only religion or way of life, that attacked the practice of Slavery in the heart. While people of other nations were readily engaging in Slavery, Islam came about and waged war upon it.

"Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. - [Quran 2:177]

Perhaps we can agree for future discourse:
1. When you make a statement like "Islam gives asylum" you will provide a full and honest picture.
2. I will try to be more neutral in my explanations. If you provide a full and honest picture, I won't need to say anything!
That way, readers can make up their own minds based on full information. Which, if I read your post of 1:38 correctly, you also want

Feel free to chime in whenever you want. I do not have anything to hide, Islam doesn't have anything to hide, really the Quran is an open book available for anyone interested. I back up everything that I say with the Quran and the sunnah. Yes, I am a Muslim but I also study Islam academically. The danger with posts like yours is that verses are torn out of context to prove some particular juristical opinion or notion that you want to affirm. Contextualization gives to countless verses a construction different from the one usually placed on them; it throws new light not only on the doctrinal and creedal aspects of the Quranic message but also on the methodological aspects of the messagE, it lends new significance not only to the moral and legal injunctions of the Quran but also to the stories and parables narrated by the Quran. It is indeed a great irony that all heresies have been claimed by their propounders to have their basis in the Quran. And if these heresies looked plausible to many, it was because the context of the verses constituting the so-called 'basis in the Quran' was not properly understood. This Book is not like a magazine, article, or blog. You can’t skim through the Quran to get its treasure!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You must truly be delusional, on drugs or just the most ignorant person on the internet if you believe everything that you wrote. Do you really think that I as a Muslim, am so scared of what an anonymous is writing on a public forum that i am being peaceful, lol ? I told you "Peace" because I do not argue/discuss with the ignoramus, I choose to use my time for other things and as such this will be my last response to you on this. And if for nothing else than politeness, stop trolling this thread. The question posed by the OP was "What kind of believer are you"? Peace!

My dear friend, you should wish her peace because God (Allah, Brahman, Spirit, creator, nature,, Good, Source, whatever name you call God) tells us to love one another. We are called to love by Divine order. We are to love even when it's so very hard to do. As a Christian I find it most difficult to love the type of poster you are arguing with. She is so busy being "right" that she misses the whole point of the Christ she claims to love.

This is an opportunity to simply love. To open your heart and allow your love to expand. When people of all faiths learn to truly love, we will live in a very different world.

The divine light in me honors the divine light in you.

Thank you for this important lesson in Love.A believer who loves God is expected to love His people and be kind to them regardless of how hard it can be sometimes, this is something I have to remind myself often, so thank you for this beautiful reminder. May you be blessed, Ma salaam ( With peace) !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I understand your confusion. Islamic principles are a careful balancing act protecting the right of the individual but also considering what is best for society as a whole. Islamic principles are deemed timeless. Any girl over the age of puberty may marry with the consent of her father or guardian. This was true in 600 AD and holds true in Islam today. It is not subject to the culture or morality of society of the time.

That Aisha got engaged at 9 and married at age 14 is defensible to Muslims simply because Islam permits it. However, this defense is not acceptable to you since you clearly reject Islam. As such I tried to show you that Aisha's marriage was really not unusual at all in those times. Many girls from well to do families, important families, or from royalty married that early.

Muhammad condemned people in his society at the time because their actions, such as burying female children alive, committing usury, depriving women of rights, etc..were not simply a reflection of those times, but instead acts that were abominable because they impinged on the rights of individuals and were very harmful to society.

Muhammad forbade the killing of female children, made it acceptable to marry widows, prohibited usury, gave women inheritance rights, etc...and these rulings hold today.

Different PP here from the one you're talking to.

I'm so tired of hearing that ending female infanticide (burial) is why Islam is so wonderful. To non-Muslims, there's a sharp incongruity between patting ourselves on the back for ending a barbarous practice 1400 years ago, and the inequalities that continue to apply to women today: lesser value of a woman's testimony, women's restricted ability to divorce, women's lesser inheritance rights, custody rights, and let's not even go into the relative roles of men and women in a marriage.

BTW, you also mention inheritance rights but, typically, you don't bother to explain this. To be clear for those who don't already know: Mohammed/Quran gives female heirs 1/2 the inheritance portion received by male heirs.

I'm sorry, but every time you represent things like "inheritance rights for women!" in a way that implies actual equality, other posters and I will feel compelled to come on and set the record straight.

And I, as a Muslim woman feel compelled to come and tell you stop speaking for me. You really think that you as an outsider care more about my rights than I do? You really think you can defend my rights better than I do? Who made you the voice of records for Muslim women? In Islam, the male inherits double the female(this is in the case of brothers & sisters), because the man is legally responsible for financially 100% taking care of his parents, wife, children, divorcee (for a period of time), sisters (single or widowed), and his aunts. He can be sued in court by any of these people if he neglects them, and the court would enforce payments upon him to them. As women in Islamic law are not required to maintain themselves or others, they are given half of what men receive in inheritance in observation that they are not responsible for the maintenance of anyone and to replenish men’s wealth who alone are responsible to work and provide maintenance. In this, Islam opposed the ignorant un-Islamic practice that forbade women to inherit under any circumstance because she does not maintain anyone Muslim women are free to do whatever they please with their money, while the men are NOT, they are obligated to fully maintain the women. Without doubt those who claim that Islam is unjust toward women because it gives her half of what men receive in inheritance are ignorant of the distribution of rights and obligations in the pure, just Islamic law.

Being a Muslim woman is a joyful thing, really we enjoy it and we love our rights and can not think of anything that honors women the way Islam has honored us. Of course you will never comprehend this... Muslim women have been heads of state more than 5 times in Muslim-majority countries, elected democratically by popular vote , how many times has a woman been president of the United States? But hey, we need to be liberated, talk about messed up priorities

You must truly be delusional, on drugs or just the most ignorant person on the internet if you believe everything that you wrote. Do you really think that I as a Muslim, am so scared of what an anonymous is writing on a public forum that i am being peaceful, lol ? I told you "Peace" because I do not argue/discuss with the ignoramus, I choose to use my time for other things and as such this will be my last response to you on this. And if for nothing else than politeness, stop trolling this thread. The question posed by the OP was "What kind of believer are you"? Peace!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Ok, for some perspective, the minimum age for marriage in the US-State of Delaware in year 1880 was 7 and 10 in most of the other states.

Now, authentic Hadith reports do show us that the prophet Muhammad saw did marry Aisha at the age of 6, but they also show the consummation of the marriage was completed when she was 9 years old. As a Muslim, I have no shame in sharing this. The West says, he married a child, don't they? And some Muslims when they are told this get embarrassed, their faces become red, and they don't know how to answer, they start stuttering. Did you know that American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in Delaware, the age of consent was only seven? Now during the Prophet saw's time it was a NORM to be married at a young age. This is why the people of Quraish and other Arabian tribes at Prophet's time found absolutely no fault in their marriage. They detested Islam, they did everything to belittle the Prophet, tried to prevent Islam from spreading and even attempted to kill the Prophet saw ! However, they raised no objection to the marriage of the Prophet saw to Aisha since at those times such a thing was not considered 'immoral'. It ought also be noted that Aisha was engaged to Jubayr before Prophet Muhammed saw. This indicates the age of marriage and engagement in Prophet' saw's time. However, the engagement was later nullified by Jubayr's parents due to Abu Bakr (Aisha's dad) embracing Islam.Thus the history demonstrates that the age of the marriage was lower and relative to olden times, the marriage of the Prophet was not abnormal and there was nothing immoral about it. It was a norm at biblical times to be wedded at puberty or earlier, the age of consent one century ago in a 'modern country' was as low as 10 or 12, even 7 in Delaware! Even in our times, in certain societies, the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13. In the light of historical evidences, the marriage cannot be criticized.

ALSO it is important to know:

Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet saw , and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. Prophet Muhammad's saw marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!So to call Prophet Muhammad saw a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.

A lot of the things we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards" today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago. Today, anyone under 18 years old is considered a "child", a baby still under his mommy's and daddy's care. Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age of 18 were considered wise and very mature.

An English Historian stated, "At that age 'A'ishah was fully developed, through fast development which was present amongst the Arab women of the time and where they would start to age during the late twenties. But this marriage has troubled many people about Muhammad. This is because they look upon the marriage as if it is in the present day, not taking into account the context of this marriage and that it was an accepted event. They do not consider that this trend is still present in Europe and Asia, until this very day. This was common in Spain and Portugal until recent years. Even in these times it is not uncommon. In some mountainous areas in the United States of America, it still exists.

I think you may be mistaken about this, Sister. The hadith are not always reliable. Check out www.supremeislamiccouncil.com

I know that some Muslims do say that Aisha was older and there is a difference of opinion about this Allahu Ahlam! I go by the Bukhari hadith where she states that the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. Subhanallah, as Muslims we have nothing to be ashamed of, whether Aisha R.A was 9 years old, 14, or 16 shouldn't make a difference to us. In seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe). What's more, Aisha r.A had already been engaged to someone else before she married our Rassul saw suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.

Yes Sister, but I am not disagreeing with you because I feel ashamed if Aisha was in fact married at age 9. I am disagreeing with you because even Bukhari may be inaccurate also. Call Dr. Ahmad Sakr in California as he used to be on the World Muslim Council and stated that the only place where true hadith has been sorted from inaccurate ones is in a large text in Saudi Arabia. He said it has yet to be translated from Arabic to other languages. Thus, it remains only in Saudi Arabia.

Allhahu Ahlam! I agree that even Iman Bukhari rahimahullah was just a human being and as such not a perfect being. Only the Quran is perfect and error free, so I will research that more but to be honest, I have never focused too much on the age of Aisha r.a! Jazakallahu Khair

And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say peace !

Quran 25:63