Muhammad raped Aisha

I shall ignore mostly all said by pro because, sorry to say, all I see is ranting and repetition of already destroyed points, it even get hilarious when the pro claims knowledge of Islamic laws.. it a point where one will say "hold up, stop right there". However, I wont let the readers down now because I am set for new interesting argument which should come in no better time than now because they are based on roping the pro with his logic. I will present just two, the first I call "the hadith approach" while the other is called the "common sense" approach. THE HADITH APPROACH As a muslim, we understand our religion more than the pagans and that should be respected as we can be an authority with our culture. I am not proposing blind argument here but common sense which whether the pro like it or now he needs to work with. The first law in hadith is that, whatever comes in the quran have superiority to whatever comes in hadith, and another one suggests that, in the evidence of contradiction (which can happen because hadiths are real life narrations from men), history, frequency of repetition, common sense or believing in constant message shall be given privilege. For example: (I will give only graphical example because of space) If it is said that muhammed performed a miracle and the first hadith says there were 100 people present and the second says there were 115 people there, muslims will focus on the event and discard the contradicting numbers. In the event of the topic, it has being proven beyond doubt that the age of Aisha at marriage cannot be determined with the hadiths in question. I will be the shorter version of the argument. According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as in Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, if Aisha got married in year 1 AH or 2 AH (after Migration to Medina), she must have been between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah (Migration to Medina). However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha 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 Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years, then her (AISHA) age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21. Let say that"s not enough, The Hadith regarding the age of Aisha (RA) during her marrige to Prophet PBUH. Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (A018;) 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 (A018;) for nine years (i.e. till his death). Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 Book 67, Hadith 70 As you can see above we can read that Aisha (RA) was six years old when she got married and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Whilst reading the Hadith we find out Hisham said? One has to ask who is Hisham? Most of these narratives printed in the Hadith books are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. First, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is 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. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years. Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and the reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) report that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: " He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq." (REF: Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15thcentury. Vol 11, p. 50). It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq: "I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq." (REF: Tehzi'b u'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50) Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports: "When he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly" (REF: Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu'l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301) CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham"s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha"s marriage and age are unreliable. Let say that is not even enough THE COMMON SENSE APPROACH It is apparent that the pro keeps throwing on our face that Aisha did not consent to her marriage (WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED OR WILL BE). The pro has no backing for age of consent, I had tried to borrow him sense from his bible on the age of consent and also from history, but he said it is "red herring""fine. So now, since the pro cant provide an age of consent according to any law (used in the past) (divine or constitutional). We shall assume that with his baseless arguement, any age a lady got married is rape. So by this, we can say as I am typing this (which is at the middle of the night), the pro"s father is probably raping his mummy. I am not sorry to say this because this is his implication of his argument. YOUR DAD IS A CRIMINAL (A RAPIST) BY YOUR DEFINITION. WOW! CAN WE SAY THE SAME ABOUT MY DAD AND MUHAMMED? My dad is a muslim, so is Muhammed so they both follow the injunction of quran which says: And test the orhan until they attain age of marriage; then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, and do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they attain to full age; and whoever is rich, let him abstain altogether, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably; then when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence; and Allah is enough as a Reckoner. " Quran 4:6 The Quran has left the decision of the specific age of marriage to the judgment of man in his time. The pro did repeatedly say that if Muhammed live I our town he will be arrested. Well, he is not living in our time and so we can only judge him on what goes in the past. (I have presented what takes in the past in details from the early rounds). In the same sense that Obama will be killed for allowing gay marriage in the past. Also, we see that the pro made out a claim to fall my historical and biblical reference (which by the way calls all Christian a rapist since he lowers the value of biblical moral), he wrote THAT SINCE MUHAMMED IS A PROPHET, AN EXAMPLE TO MUSLIMS, WE EXPECT BETTER, HIS MORALS SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND. But I ask of which law should Muhammed be judged, and how do we define better? Am sure the pro is not looking at himself as a standard since is just a boy with unreliable logic or morals. I will says he wants Muhammed to be judged by divine laws. Of cause, why not. I have presented the quranic verse suggesting age of consent. And since he claims to "know" Islamic law which he says incriminate muhammed, he shall provide the part of any law that incriminate Muhammed. I wont go again without providing to the readers the stance of his bible on this. I wonder how Jehovah will feels has pro blaspheme on him through his prophets and his son"s mother ( Church calls Abraham "our father in Faith" for that matter). Here is another "red herring" to my body of evidences. Lol Abraham In the book of Genesis in the Bible it is recorded about Abraham: "Now Sarai, Abram"s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. " So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael." (Genesis, chapter 16, verses 1"4, and 15"16, New International Version) Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar"s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham"s wife. Young, no consent, old husband = rape, right? Wow In conclusion, all these people concerned never raised a rape flag: Muhammed, Aisha, Pagans at their time, Muslims at their time, pagans and muslims after their time, father of the bride, mother of the bride, Allah or Jehovah, however, a random personality 2000 years later says the marriage is rape with no evidence. Isn"t this just an insult to be ignored? Thanks.