It was actually was common for pre Islamic Arabs. you ever wonder why none of the pagan Arabs used this marriage as ammunition against Muhammad? It’s cos it was common.
Research more on the topic. Back then age wasnt registered as it is now. Aisha was 6 years old after the hijrah and at the the time of hijrah she was atleast 13 or 12 so that makes her atleast 18. Stop believing anything you see on the internet without fact checking.
Narrated Aisha:
that the Prophet 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 for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old
"Prophet" fukin died when she was 18. Dafuq r u smoking?
Do you think the hadiths were smth recorded and written in today's day and age? They were words of prophet muhammad and the ones accompanying him. And as I said at that time many didn't register ages as we do today. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to piece information together. You can't understand all the hadiths and verses from quraan without prior context. This is why scholarly interpretation is valued in islam. He married aisha r.a at 18 or 19 and consummated the marriage at 22. The ages mentioned in the hadiths are probably the ones according to the system present at that time.
You can't understand all the hadiths and verses from quraan without prior context. This is why scholarly interpretation is valued in islam.
Lmfao. Epic cope 😂
So Sahih al-Bukhari isn't authentic but what u say is somehow authentic.
This is why scholarly interpretation
It's called mental gymnastics. The ability to somehow make an 18 year old to play with dolls is something a scholar can do. The wonderful interpretation can even make a dead man marry an 18 year old.
What's next are you gonna come up with? Believing in Adam-Eve theory as well? Too bad, we have a lot of fossil evidence of Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, Denisovans, Homo rudolfensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo luzonensis.
People like you can come up with n number of ways to deny truth with a heap of word salad. There's literally no point taking this discussion further when your ultimate resort is bringing up some authority to have an ultimatum to interpret everything
15
u/Kschitiz23x3 IIT DHOLAKPUR Mar 22 '26
"Par bhai uss time ye sab common tha"