If you are European and accept muslims you are the problem

[Localcat12345]

All browns are a problem, realistically

If they're brown they're incompatible with civilized society, simple as

Not all browns and blacks but most that is for sure some black people agree with me and also think that blacks are absolutely doing the worst right now

 

[Localcat12345]

everyone is the problem in your eyes

The problem is muslims want to rule everything because they think that's the only true religion and they will do anything to do that

 

[PSLNick11]

tricky question but for me the best country with beauituful scenery and nice hospality is frickin pakistan bro ig idk bro
no country is good

ok so the people living under Muslim law slaughtering women for not wearing a hijab, blowing up people in the easter festival last year in london and want sharia law in europe isnt anything. also i just found a contradiction in something you just sai

'Kill Them Wherever You Find Them (2:191)

and

The Quran permits fighting in self-defense (Quran 2:190-194)

is it self defense or what???​

 

[Bryce]

Not all browns and blacks

Not all, not all, not all, but most

some black people agree with me and also think that blacks are absolutely doing the worst right now

Exceptions to the rule exist, they always have. Unfortunately they can't sway the majority, losing them would be a small price to pay if it meant making the US and EU all white again

 

[buddhistking]

Christians don't kill for religion.

Not in the modern day no, because European countries are now civilised. But in the past thousand years then yes, Christians have killed others and each other countless times for their religion

Also what do you believe in? The big bang? What was before the big bang then? Also how life appeared from non-life? Your belief is more flawed then Christianity.

Science isnt about belief, its about evidence. If they dont know something yet, they admit it and keep searching, not fill the gap with fairytale stories like Christians and Muslims

 

[Localcat12345]

Not in the modern day no, because European countries are now civilised, but in the past thousand years then yes, Christians have killed others and each other countless times for their religion

Science isnt about belief, its about evidence. If they dont know something yet, they admit it and keep searching, not fill the gap with fairytale stories like Christians and Muslims

I agree religion is not a thing but we can all agree we would rather live in a all christian world then a muslim one

 

[GhostBoySwag]

​

The Quran permits fighting in self-defense (Quran 2:190-194)​

​

is it self defense or what???​

IN WAR!?!?!? IF SOMEONE ATTACKS YOU/FIGHTS YOU IN A WAR
YOU SELF DEFENSE!?!?!?!
Did you even read my debunk on a guy

 

[GhostBoySwag]

The Quran permits fighting in self-defense (Quran 2:190-194) and against oppression (Quran 4:75), emphasizing proportionality and restraint (Quran 2:190). This guidance acknowledges the harsh realities of warfare throughout human history. When reading the entire Surah, it becomes clear that the permission to engage in combat is primarily directed towards established enemies or those who pose a direct threat. We were sent w enmity between us since Prophet Aadam. This world is a test, and is not an entirely peaceful place. The Quran is a guidance on how to deal w the evils already present in this world. Reading the entire surahs and even Quran and just pray to Allah for guidance and clarity (Surah 20:114) The Quran also underscores the importance of honoring treaties and agreements with others, including polytheists (disbelievers), who have not violated their terms (Quran 9:4)

@PSLNick11

 

[Michelangelo]

Christians, Muslims, what's the big difference, they both pray to the same non-existent sky daddy in different ways

actually they are extremely different, just look at Europe and north Africa the difference is very clear

 

[joan]

Not in the modern day no, because European countries are now civilised. But in the past thousand years then yes, Christians have killed others and each other countless times for their religion

Orthodox Christians never lead wars for religion.
Nor killed innocents.

Science isnt about belief, its about evidence. If they dont know something yet, they admit it and keep searching, not fill the gap with fairytale stories like Christians and Muslims

If we had evidence of God that would mean that the balance will be broken and we wouldn't have free will. I think you know that it's impossible for non-life to become life magically.

 

[it is so over]

title

Shalom

 

[buddhistking]

actually they are extremely different, just look at Europe and north Africa the difference is very clear

Cope, thats just what the followers of both religions like to believe

Orthodox Christians never lead wars for religion.
Nor killed innocents.

Was I speaking of Orthodox Christians or Christians in general?

If we had evidence of God that would mean that the balance will be broken and we wouldn't have free will. I think you know that it's impossible for non-life to become life magically.

Saying God hides to protect free will is just an excuse. If he was real, evidence wouldnt erase choice. And life from non-life isnt magic, its chemistry were still uncovering

 

[Michelangelo]

Cope, thats just what the followers of both religions like to believe

Was i speaking of Orthodox Christians or Christians in general?

Saying God hides to protect free will is just an excuse. If he was real, evidence wouldnt erase choice. And life from non-life isn’t magic, its chemistry were still uncovering

we literally have physical, tangible and observable proof of that and you still deny, thats on you tbh. not all religions are equal

 

[joan]

Was i speaking of Orthodox Christians or Christians in general?

I'm an Orthodox Christian. And you put all Christians in one. I just state the facts so no one is confused.

Saying God hides to protect free will is just an excuse. If he was real, evidence wouldnt erase choice.

If the facts were clearly stated to everyone wouldn't we feel scared of hell and wouldn't we be forced to serve God especially if the whole society is build around him?

And life from non-life isn’t magic, its chemistry were still uncovering

Mhmm. I still wonder about the big bang man. How could have chemical elements existed always? They created themselves or?

 

[buddhistking]

I'm an Orthodox Christian. And you put all Christians in one. I just state the facts so no one is confused.

My bad i forgot that the Byzantine and Russian Empires were Orthodox, so yes they have killed for religion too

If the facts were clearly stated to everyone wouldn't we feel scared of hell and wouldn't we be forced to serve God especially if the whole society is build around him?

Fear isnt free will, if the only reason people follow God is because theyre scared of hell, thats control, not choice, but nah "muh God is all loving" jfl

Mhmm. I still wonder about the big bang man. How could have chemical elements existed always? They created themselves or?

Energy condensed into matter as the universe cooled, we don't know anything before that yet, but we don't claim to with a fairytale story

 

[buddhistking]

we literally have physical, tangible and observable proof of that and you still deny, thats on you tbh. not all religions are equal

Christianity and Islam imo are equally not real and worthless

 

[Michelangelo]

Christianity and Islam imo are equally not real and worthless

I mean they literally shaped the modern world so I wouldnt consider them worthless.
I guess i understand what you mean because nobody truly knows if god exists but thats what faith is in the end

 

[Geoff2024]

title.

Yes instead we should accept the jews

 

[joan]

My bad i forgot that the Byzantine and Russian Empires were Orthodox, so yes they have killed for religion too

The main religion in the country itself was Orthodox. They didn't kill for religion. But just like every other country leaders lead defensive wars and wars for land.

Fear isnt free will, if the only reason people follow God is because theyre scared of hell, thats control, not choice, but nah "muh God is all loving" jfl

This is what I said. It wouldn't be free will because we would have been forced to believe if the truth was right in front of us.

Energy condensed into matter as the universe cooled, we don't know anything before that yet, but we don't claim to with a fairytale story

So you don't know if there was anything before the big bang, right? Isn't this a blind belief too?

 

[Ghoulish]

look at italy and then look at afganistan and say those same words to my face. europe is falling because of muslims. YOUR CLEARLY FUCKING RETARDED

Look at Western Europe for 99% of its Christian history and then look at the Middle East for all of its history before it was colonised. You’ll see the difference between the freaks who eat babies and burn their women alive for “sleeping with satan” and the guys who invented algebra and turned Spain (Al Andalusia) into the most advanced place in medieval Europe.

 

[Ghoulish]

What are you talking about man

The verse right below it explains my point

 

[User28823]

europeans who accept muslims should be stripped of citizenship and deported to said muslim countries

 

[Part-Time Chad]

Idk at this point, man.

On the one hand, Muslims are antithetical to everything classic America stands for. On the other, I like Islam's based treatment of women. So I'm kinda torn.

 

[Ghoulish]

hi, ghoulish. This is false. Like, really false. I could debate you on this privately lmfao.

Debate me here. Explain how it is false that she was treating soldiers on a constantly moving battlefield and how asmas age puts hers at her mid teens. And how hishaam wasnt diagnosed with memory loss.

 

[Ghoulish]

then who are real Muslims?????? they live under sharia law which is Muslim law?????

The first few caliphates which allowed Muslims, Christian’s and Jews to prosper. Who were the first to allow women to be educated (France in the late 1800s for comparison) and who invented Universities, hospitals and thousands of mathematical Techniques like algebra

 

[Ghoulish]

ok so the people living under Muslim law slaughtering women for not wearing a hijab, blowing up people in the easter festival last year in london and want sharia law in europe isnt anything. also i just found a contradiction in something you just sai

'Kill Them Wherever You Find Them (2:191)​

​

and​

​

The Quran permits fighting in self-defense (Quran 2:190-194)​

​

is it self defense or what???​

For the kill them wherever you find them the context is that the Muslims were attacked by the non Muslims living in the same city. They were told to “kill them whereever they find them” and were told not to kill the elderly, the sick, the women and children and anyone that surrenders. Read the full context, I could do the same to you without context.

Explain all of these without context

 

[Ghoulish]

Good one sadly they engage in combat with us because they have 2 houses Dar al-islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War) where territories not under Muslim rule, where Islamic law does not hold sway.

Lmfao @GhostBoySwag this nigga

Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are outdated juristic concepts from the medieval period, not found in the Qur'an or the core teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. They were for state policy in a different era.

The dar Al Islam was used to catagorise empires such as the Romans (Byzantine’s) the inquisition and the mongols and anyone that was at WAR with the Muslims. They are NOT “areas not under muslim rule” rather they are EMPIRES directly fighting the Muslims. It described geopolitical rivals, not a religious command for perpetual war. The existence of other categories like "Dar al-Sulh" (House of Treaty) proves the framework was nuanced and allowed for peaceful coexistence with non Muslims. Dont try to twist words, you Jew.

The Quran is the HIGHEST source of law, and it clearly states you can ONLY fight those who fight you in self defence. Them “not being muslim” is not a valid point to war them, show me a verse where it says those who arent muslim are at war with you.

 

[Ghoulish]

How can he be knowledgeable if the quran literally says you can lie to other people about the religion because it is "for the greater good" LMFAO

Thats in Judaism lmao theres no verse in the Quran that says that. Show me one verse.

 

[Ghoulish]

But Jizyah is not the only tax they use they also do something called Kharaj which is land tax. And how can you deny them saying that killing and mistreating non believers is not mentioned in the quran? I have been to saudi and been mistreated because I am not muslim but i am also not christian they told me i should "revert" and that i was "brainwashed" for not believing in islam and can i not mention how they back talk foreigners?

kharaj tax is for agricultural land and is for ALL people, not just non Muslims. 1% tax (as it should be) vs 40% tax.

 

[holy]

Debate me here.

k.

I'll specifically respond to the following claims made:

1. “the only bad thing you could put on muslims is aisha’s age”

fallacy right there.

an attempt at narrowing the critique to a single point, which is classic damage control. islamic tradition, history, and jurisprudence are filled with ethical, theological, and historical issues that critics have basically raised for centuries. shit like slavery, treatment of apostates, hadith contradictions, violent expansions, the doctrine of abrogation, theological fatalism, etc.

the moment you or ANYONE begin to claim there’s ONLY ONE problem, you've already revealed you're either

1. ignorant of your own sources
or
2. dishonest about them.

2. “it’s been debunked and it’s narrated by some 71 year old with diagnosed alzheimer’s who said he heard from someone who heard from someone x50 that aisha was 9.”

1. this is genuinely such misrepresentation of hadith science.

you're making it sound like there’s only one narration of aisha’s age, coming from some senile old man, which is so fucking false jfl.

the age of nine is recorded in:

- sahih al-bukhari

(5134)

(3896)
and more.

- sahih muslim

(1422)

these are the two most authoritative hadith collections in sunni islam. they’re considered the gold standard of authenticity in mainstream islam.

if you want to throw those out, you've basically dismantled sunni islam’s entire hadith infrastructure.

2. on hisham ibn ‘urwah, one of the narrators, critics have pointed out that in his old age (when he moved to iraq) some said his memory weakened.

but this is dishonest cherry-picking.

early in his career, when he narrated the hadith of aisha’s age, he was regarded as a reliable transmitter by all the major hadith scholars. you weakening his reliability retroactively because the content makes moderns uncomfortable is literally the definition of special pleading. and the hadith about aisha’s age is transmitted through multiple chains

3. if it’s “debunked,” why is it still in

- sahih bukhari

and

sahih muslim,

untouched, uncorrected, and still taught as authoritative in mainstream islamic seminaries worldwide?

you can’t claim something is debunked while simultaneously watching it sit in the most sacred hadith texts that muslims won’t throw away jfl.

3. “it goes against logic and historical records, since she’s recorded to be 19 during consummation.”

1. there is NOOOOOOOOOOOOO reliable early islamic source that states aisha was 19 at consummation. NONE. this number shows up in modern apologetics instead of being in the canonical texts. every major early hadith source (bukhari, muslim, abu dawud, etc.) says six at marriage, nine at consummation. apologists invent the “19” figure by selectively reinterpreting timelines and ignoring direct narrations.

2. the hadith corpus explicitly places her at nine. if muslims are going to stick to the principle of sahih reports being authoritative, they can’t handwave this away with a “historical record” that doesn’t exist in islamic tradition. if they want to abandon hadith reliability, then that means questioning not just this but large chunks of islam itself (like how they know how to pray, fast, etc.). it’s a lose-lose.

3. “it goes against logic” logic doesn’t determine someone’s age. textual evidence does.

provide primary sources that explicitly state she was 19 or else your claim is taken out of your own ass with zero foundation. logic doesn’t override what your own most trusted texts say.

4. “she took part in battles just before marriage. 8-year-old on the battlefield saving lives is insane.”

1. wrong person, wrong timeline. you're mixing up events.

aisha did NOT fight in battles as a child. the earliest reports of her being present are at uhud, when she would have been around 14 if we use the 9-year consummation timeline. bringing water and tending to the wounded was her ONLY role, which was the standard tasks for women who accompanied armies. NOOOOOOOOOOO report puts an 8-year-old aisha in the middle of combat. NONE.

2. "insane" because you're interpreting “battlefield” in modern terms, like an 8-year-old with a sword fighting off fucking roman legions. in reality, women and even children accompanied arab raiding parties to provide water, food, and medical help. the presence of young people around military camps in that culture was quite literally normal. look at 7th-century arabia instead of projecting modern war standards onto it.

3. you're being really inconsistent.

if she supposedly fought battles “just before marriage,” then by your logic she was already mature enough for battle support but somehow too young for marriage?

you can’t have it both ways.

either

1. she was young (and your battlefield point is bullshit)
or
2. she was older (and you abandon the sahih narrations).

both routes undercut your own claim.

the whole argument is incoherent start to finish.

 

[GhostBoySwag]

an attempt at narrowing the critique to a single point, which is classic damage control. islamic tradition, history, and jurisprudence are filled with ethical, theological, and historical issues that critics have basically raised for centuries. shit like slavery, treatment of apostates, hadith contradictions, violent expansions, the doctrine of abrogation, theological fatalism, etc.

elaborate, i am quite curious to hear you out

 

[Ghoulish]

k.

I'll specifically respond to the following claims made:



fallacy right there.

an attempt at narrowing the critique to a single point, which is classic damage control. islamic tradition, history, and jurisprudence are filled with ethical, theological, and historical issues that critics have basically raised for centuries. shit like slavery, treatment of apostates, hadith contradictions, violent expansions, the doctrine of abrogation, theological fatalism, etc.

the moment you or ANYONE begin to claim there’s ONLY ONE problem, you've already revealed you're either

1. ignorant of your own sources
or
2. dishonest about them.



1. this is genuinely such misrepresentation of hadith science.

you're making it sound like there’s only one narration of aisha’s age, coming from some senile old man, which is so fucking false jfl.

the age of nine is recorded in:

- sahih al-bukhari
View attachment 4103622(5134)
View attachment 4103625(3896)
and more.

- sahih muslim
View attachment 4103630(1422)

these are the two most authoritative hadith collections in sunni islam. they’re considered the gold standard of authenticity in mainstream islam.

if you want to throw those out, you've basically dismantled sunni islam’s entire hadith infrastructure.

2. on hisham ibn ‘urwah, one of the narrators, critics have pointed out that in his old age (when he moved to iraq) some said his memory weakened.

but this is dishonest cherry-picking.

early in his career, when he narrated the hadith of aisha’s age, he was regarded as a reliable transmitter by all the major hadith scholars. you weakening his reliability retroactively because the content makes moderns uncomfortable is literally the definition of special pleading. and the hadith about aisha’s age is transmitted through multiple chains

3. if it’s “debunked,” why is it still in

- sahih bukhari
View attachment 4103640
and

sahih muslim,
View attachment 4103645

untouched, uncorrected, and still taught as authoritative in mainstream islamic seminaries worldwide?

you can’t claim something is debunked while simultaneously watching it sit in the most sacred hadith texts that muslims won’t throw away jfl.



1. there is NOOOOOOOOOOOOO reliable early islamic source that states aisha was 19 at consummation. NONE. this number shows up in modern apologetics instead of being in the canonical texts. every major early hadith source (bukhari, muslim, abu dawud, etc.) says six at marriage, nine at consummation. apologists invent the “19” figure by selectively reinterpreting timelines and ignoring direct narrations.

2. the hadith corpus explicitly places her at nine. if muslims are going to stick to the principle of sahih reports being authoritative, they can’t handwave this away with a “historical record” that doesn’t exist in islamic tradition. if they want to abandon hadith reliability, then that means questioning not just this but large chunks of islam itself (like how they know how to pray, fast, etc.). it’s a lose-lose.

3. “it goes against logic” logic doesn’t determine someone’s age. textual evidence does.

provide primary sources that explicitly state she was 19 or else your claim is taken out of your own ass with zero foundation. logic doesn’t override what your own most trusted texts say.



1. wrong person, wrong timeline. you're mixing up events.

aisha did NOT fight in battles as a child. the earliest reports of her being present are at uhud, when she would have been around 14 if we use the 9-year consummation timeline. bringing water and tending to the wounded was her ONLY role, which was the standard tasks for women who accompanied armies. NOOOOOOOOOOO report puts an 8-year-old aisha in the middle of combat. NONE.

2. "insane" because you're interpreting “battlefield” in modern terms, like an 8-year-old with a sword fighting off fucking roman legions. in reality, women and even children accompanied arab raiding parties to provide water, food, and medical help. the presence of young people around military camps in that culture was quite literally normal. look at 7th-century arabia instead of projecting modern war standards onto it.

3. you're being really inconsistent.

if she supposedly fought battles “just before marriage,” then by your logic she was already mature enough for battle support but somehow too young for marriage?

you can’t have it both ways.

either

1. she was young (and your battlefield point is bullshit)
or
2. she was older (and you abandon the sahih narrations).

both routes undercut your own claim.

the whole argument is incoherent start to finish.

Very nice point. Actual coherent argument put up, unlike that French rape baby gorilla nigger @PrinceLuenLeoncur who chimped out and blocked me

@GhostBoySwag

“Rejecting this hadith means dismantling the entire Sunni Hadith infrastructure, as it's in Bukhari and Muslim.”

This is a false dilemma and a fear tactic. Youre assuming that the collections are infallible and that criticizing a single hadith brings down the entire edifice. This is not how Hadith science works.

Even the most revered Hadith collections are not above criticism. Classical scholars themselves identified shadh (anomalous) or even da'if (weak) hadith within Bukhari and Muslim based on additional scrutiny of the text (matn) or deeper biographical analysis (ilal). The science does not end with Bukhari's grading; it begins there

The argument is not to "throw out" Bukhari. The argument is that this specific report, through its primary narrator Hisham ibn 'Urwah, has unique and documented problems that were noted by other classical scholars. Respecting the Hadith tradition means engaging in this critical analysis, not suspending it for inconvenient reports

on hisham ibn ‘urwah, one of the narrators, critics have pointed out that in his old age (when he moved to iraq) some said his memory weakened.

but this is dishonest cherry-picking.

early in his career, when he narrated the hadith of aisha’s age, he was regarded as a reliable transmitter by all the major hadith scholars. you weakening his reliability retroactively because the content makes moderns uncomfortable is literally the definition of special pleading. and the hadith about aisha’s age is transmitted through multiple chains

This misrepresents my criticism. The point is not that he was unreliable his whole life. The point is a specific, documented historical anomaly:
The hadith about Aisha's age was only narrated in Iraq, during the period where his memory was questioned.
It was never narrated by his students in Medina (like Imam Malik), where he was at his peak reliability

This isn't "special pleading" based on my “modern discomfort”; it's a classic application of Hadith criticism. If a narrator's reliability is zone-specific, reports that only emerge from their unreliable period are treated with extreme caution. The burden of proof is on you, @holy to explain why this specific report, from this specific time, should be accepted as the exception.

there is NOOOOOOOOOOOOO reliable early islamic source that states aisha was 19 at consummation. NONE. this number shows up in modern apologetics instead of being in the canonical texts. every major early hadith source (bukhari, muslim, abu dawud, etc.) says six at marriage, nine at consummation. apologists invent the “19” figure by selectively reinterpreting timelines and ignoring direct narrations.

This is factually incorrect. The figure of 17-19 is not pulled from thin air; it is derived from a rigorous cross-referencing of established historical facts that are also found in early sources.

The calculation comes from the well-documented life of Aisha's sister, Asma bint Abi Bakr. Multiple early sources (e.g., Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Kathir) record that Asma died at the age of 100 in 73 AH. This is a fixed point.

If she was 100 in 73 AH, she was 27 at the time of the Hijra (1 AH). It is also established in sources like Ibn Hajar's Al-Isabah that Asma was ten years older than Aisha.

Aisha was 17 at the Hijra. Her marriage was consummated in 2 AH or 3 AH, making her 18-19 years old.

This is not a "modern apologetic." Nigger. It is a historical calculation based on early biographical data (tarajim). You, @holy must engage with this evidence—Asma's age is just as much a part of the "historical record" as the hadith is. To dismiss it is to cherry-pick the evidence that suits one's pre-existing conclusion you nigger.

aisha did NOT fight in battles as a child. the earliest reports of her being present are at uhud, when she would have been around 14 if we use the 9-year consummation timeline. bringing water and tending to the wounded was her ONLY role, which was the standard tasks for women who accompanied armies. NOOOOOOOOOOO report puts an 8-year-old aisha in the middle of combat. NONE.

2. "insane" because you're interpreting “battlefield” in modern terms, like an 8-year-old with a sword fighting off fucking roman legions. in reality, women and even children accompanied arab raiding parties to provide water, food, and medical help. the presence of young people around military camps in that culture was quite literally normal. look at 7th-century arabia instead of projecting modern war standards onto it.

First of all, stop lying, i know what you’re doing.

The traditional narrative states the marriage was consummated in 2 AH. The Battle of Uhud was in 3 AH.
If she was 9 in 2 AH, she was 10 in 3 AH at Uhud, not 14.

You, @holy intuitively know a 9-year-old on this battlefield is absurd, so you subconsciously (and incorrectly) add years to her age to make your own argument seem plausible. This admission proves the point: the traditional age doesn't work. You, @holy have to change it to 14 to make it seem reasonable, which ironically supports the revisionist timeline (where she would have been 18-19).

Anyways, back to my point

The Battle of Uhud Was Not a "Raiding Party"; It Was a Catastrophic Defeat.

Youre describing it as a minor skirmish. Uhud was anything but.

It was a major battle between the main force of the Quraysh of Mecca and the Muslim community of Medina. Thousands of warriors were involved.

The Muslim army initially succeeded but then collapsed due to a tactical error. The Meccan cavalry, led by the brilliant Khalid ibn al-Walid (the goatttt), exploited this and launched a devastating flanking attack.

The Muslim lines broke entirely. The battlefield descended into panic, a desperate fight for survival. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself was surrounded, injured, and rumored to be dead. It was not a controlled engagement; it was a bloody rout.

The idea of a secure rear area is a modern military concept that did not apply to the chaotic melee of Uhud.

Khalid's cavalry maneuvered behind the Muslim forces. This means the entire perimeter became a killing zone. There was no safe place "behind the lines" because the enemy was everywhere.

The Hadith does not say women were in a camp far away. Sahih al-Bukhari 2880 states: "I saw Aisha bint Abi Bakr and Umm Sulaim... carrying water-skins on their backs and emptying them in the mouths of the wounded."

• They were on the battlefield itself, moving among the wounded and dying.
• This placed them directly in the path of pursuing Meccan troops and stray arrows and spears.

you, @holy reduce the task to "fetching water," akin to handing out water bottles at a marathon. This is a gross minimization.

A water-skin full of water is extremely heavy. Continuously carrying this weight, running across uneven terrain under the desert sun, and maneuvering around the dead and dying is a task that requires significant adult strength and endurance. A 9-10 year old child lacks the physical capacity for this.

They weren't tending to scraped knees. They were witnessing and interacting with the most gruesome aspects of pre-modern combat: severe lacerations, amputations, disembowelment, and the agonizing deaths of close friends and family members (e.g., Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle, was mutilated).

The psychological profile required to function effectively in this hellscape is far beyond the emotional maturity of a child. It requires the resilience and fortitude of an adult.

When women participated, they were nubile young women and adults capable of the physical and mental demands. The example of Ummy Sulaim, who was with Aisha, was a grown woman.

You, @holy, claim the presence of children was "quite literally normal." Where is the evidence for this? Can you provide a single documented example from the Battle of Badr, Uhud, or the Trench of a pre-pubescent child (age 9-10) performing this specific, dangerous role? The burden of proof is on YOU. Generalizations about "women and even children" are not evidence.

"insane" because you're interpreting “battlefield” in modern terms

you, @holy accuse me of "projecting modern war standards," but you are the one projecting a sanitized, romanticized view of ancient warfare. you, @holy are imagining a safe, almost ceremonial role. The reality was brutal, chaotic, and exceptionally dangerous for anyone present, regardless of their role.

Your argument that a 10-year-old child was present at the Battle of Uhud performing the tasks described is not historically credible. It requires us to believe:

1. That the Muslim community, known for its protectiveness of the Prophet's family, would allow his pre-pubescent wife to enter a zone of extreme danger.
2. That a child had the physical strength to perform arduous labor under combat conditions.
3. That a child had the psychological resilience to operate calmly amidst unparalleled carnage and trauma.
4. That this was "normal," despite a complete lack of evidence for other children in such roles.

And along with this, believe that the prophet would go against the quranic laws of marriage, mental maturity (being able to own property) and physical maturity (being post pubescent)

And that Aisha would have been arranged with someone at 3 years old, Jubayr ibn Mut'im, whom she was already arranged to marry with (you couldn’t in post Islamic arabia)

The critical argument (mine) is more nuanced and, ironically, more faithful to the full scope of Islamic scholarship: We must weigh all evidence. When a solitary hadith with a specifically criticized narrator (Hisham in Iraq) contradicts multiple lines of other, stronger historical evidence (Asma's age, the logistics of Uhud, the prior engagement, Quranic rulings which supersede any other report), the principle of reconciliation (al-jam` wa al-tarjeeh) dictates that the weaker evidence must be re-evaluated in light of the stronger.

The claim is not "debunked" in the sense that it has been formally erased from books. It is debunkedin the sense that a preponderance of evidence from within the Islamic tradition itself makes it historically unsustainable and logically implausible. The fact that it remains in the books is a testament to theological inertia, not to its invulnerability to criticism.

Also ur final point is retarded, my point is that she would have been too young for the battlefield if she was the traditional age, therefore she would have also been too young for the marriage.

the whole argument is incoherent start to finish.

The Incoherence of the Incoherence, fits you well.

 

[Ghoulish]

slavery, treatment of apostates, hadith contradictions, violent expansions, the doctrine of abrogation, theological fatalism

Debate me on these in pms after the aishas age one.

 

[GhostBoySwag]

Very nice point. Actual coherent argument put up, unlike that French rape baby gorilla nigger @PrinceLuenLeoncur who chimped out and blocked me

View attachment 4103754

@GhostBoySwag

“Rejecting this hadith means dismantling the entire Sunni Hadith infrastructure, as it's in Bukhari and Muslim.”

This is a false dilemma and a fear tactic. Youre assuming that the collections are infallible and that criticizing a single hadith brings down the entire edifice. This is not how Hadith science works.

Even the most revered Hadith collections are not above criticism. Classical scholars themselves identified shadh (anomalous) or even da'if (weak) hadith within Bukhari and Muslim based on additional scrutiny of the text (matn) or deeper biographical analysis (ilal). The science does not end with Bukhari's grading; it begins there

The argument is not to "throw out" Bukhari. The argument is that this specific report, through its primary narrator Hisham ibn 'Urwah, has unique and documented problems that were noted by other classical scholars. Respecting the Hadith tradition means engaging in this critical analysis, not suspending it for inconvenient reports

This misrepresents my criticism. The point is not that he was unreliable his whole life. The point is a specific, documented historical anomaly:
The hadith about Aisha's age was only narrated in Iraq, during the period where his memory was questioned.
It was never narrated by his students in Medina (like Imam Malik), where he was at his peak reliability

This isn't "special pleading" based on my “modern discomfort”; it's a classic application of Hadith criticism. If a narrator's reliability is zone-specific, reports that only emerge from their unreliable period are treated with extreme caution. The burden of proof is on you, @holy to explain why this specific report, from this specific time, should be accepted as the exception.


This is factually incorrect. The figure of 17-19 is not pulled from thin air; it is derived from a rigorous cross-referencing of established historical facts that are also found in early sources.

The calculation comes from the well-documented life of Aisha's sister, Asma bint Abi Bakr. Multiple early sources (e.g., Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Kathir) record that Asma died at the age of 100 in 73 AH. This is a fixed point.

If she was 100 in 73 AH, she was 27 at the time of the Hijra (1 AH). It is also established in sources like Ibn Hajar's Al-Isabah that Asma was ten years older than Aisha.

Aisha was 17 at the Hijra. Her marriage was consummated in 2 AH or 3 AH, making her 18-19 years old.

This is not a "modern apologetic." Nigger. It is a historical calculation based on early biographical data (tarajim). You, @holy must engage with this evidence—Asma's age is just as much a part of the "historical record" as the hadith is. To dismiss it is to cherry-pick the evidence that suits one's pre-existing conclusion you nigger.




First of all, stop lying, i know what you’re doing.

The traditional narrative states the marriage was consummated in 2 AH. The Battle of Uhud was in 3 AH.
If she was 9 in 2 AH, she was 10 in 3 AH at Uhud, not 14.

You, @holy intuitively know a 9-year-old on this battlefield is absurd, so you subconsciously (and incorrectly) add years to her age to make your own argument seem plausible. This admission proves the point: the traditional age doesn't work. You, @holy have to change it to 14 to make it seem reasonable, which ironically supports the revisionist timeline (where she would have been 18-19).

Anyways, back to my point

The Battle of Uhud Was Not a "Raiding Party"; It Was a Catastrophic Defeat.

Youre describing it as a minor skirmish. Uhud was anything but.

It was a major battle between the main force of the Quraysh of Mecca and the Muslim community of Medina. Thousands of warriors were involved.

The Muslim army initially succeeded but then collapsed due to a tactical error. The Meccan cavalry, led by the brilliant Khalid ibn al-Walid (the goatttt), exploited this and launched a devastating flanking attack.

The Muslim lines broke entirely. The battlefield descended into panic, a desperate fight for survival. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself was surrounded, injured, and rumored to be dead. It was not a controlled engagement; it was a bloody rout.

The idea of a secure rear area is a modern military concept that did not apply to the chaotic melee of Uhud.

Khalid's cavalry maneuvered behind the Muslim forces. This means the entire perimeter became a killing zone. There was no safe place "behind the lines" because the enemy was everywhere.

The Hadith does not say women were in a camp far away. Sahih al-Bukhari 2880 states: "I saw Aisha bint Abi Bakr and Umm Sulaim... carrying water-skins on their backs and emptying them in the mouths of the wounded."

• They were on the battlefield itself, moving among the wounded and dying.
• This placed them directly in the path of pursuing Meccan troops and stray arrows and spears.

you, @holy reduce the task to "fetching water," akin to handing out water bottles at a marathon. This is a gross minimization.

A water-skin full of water is extremely heavy. Continuously carrying this weight, running across uneven terrain under the desert sun, and maneuvering around the dead and dying is a task that requires significant adult strength and endurance. A 9-10 year old child lacks the physical capacity for this.

They weren't tending to scraped knees. They were witnessing and interacting with the most gruesome aspects of pre-modern combat: severe lacerations, amputations, disembowelment, and the agonizing deaths of close friends and family members (e.g., Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle, was mutilated).

The psychological profile required to function effectively in this hellscape is far beyond the emotional maturity of a child. It requires the resilience and fortitude of an adult.

When women participated, they were nubile young women and adults capable of the physical and mental demands. The example of Ummy Sulaim, who was with Aisha, was a grown woman.

You, @holy, claim the presence of children was "quite literally normal." Where is the evidence for this? Can you provide a single documented example from the Battle of Badr, Uhud, or the Trench of a pre-pubescent child (age 9-10) performing this specific, dangerous role? The burden of proof is on YOU. Generalizations about "women and even children" are not evidence.


you, @holy accuse me of "projecting modern war standards," but you are the one projecting a sanitized, romanticized view of ancient warfare. you, @holy are imagining a safe, almost ceremonial role. The reality was brutal, chaotic, and exceptionally dangerous for anyone present, regardless of their role.

Your argument that a 10-year-old child was present at the Battle of Uhud performing the tasks described is not historically credible. It requires us to believe:

1. That the Muslim community, known for its protectiveness of the Prophet's family, would allow his pre-pubescent wife to enter a zone of extreme danger.
2. That a child had the physical strength to perform arduous labor under combat conditions.
3. That a child had the psychological resilience to operate calmly amidst unparalleled carnage and trauma.
4. That this was "normal," despite a complete lack of evidence for other children in such roles.

And along with this, believe that the prophet would go against the quranic laws of marriage, mental maturity (being able to own property) and physical maturity (being post pubescent)

And that Aisha would have been arranged with someone at 3 years old, Jubayr ibn Mut'im, whom she was already arranged to marry with (you couldn’t in post Islamic arabia)

The critical argument (mine) is more nuanced and, ironically, more faithful to the full scope of Islamic scholarship: We must weigh all evidence. When a solitary hadith with a specifically criticized narrator (Hisham in Iraq) contradicts multiple lines of other, stronger historical evidence (Asma's age, the logistics of Uhud, the prior engagement, Quranic rulings which supersede any other report), the principle of reconciliation (al-jam` wa al-tarjeeh) dictates that the weaker evidence must be re-evaluated in light of the stronger.

The claim is not "debunked" in the sense that it has been formally erased from books. It is debunkedin the sense that a preponderance of evidence from within the Islamic tradition itself makes it historically unsustainable and logically implausible. The fact that it remains in the books is a testament to theological inertia, not to its invulnerability to criticism.

Also ur final point is retarded, my point is that she would have been too young for the battlefield if she was the traditional age, therefore she would have also been too young for the marriage.



The Incoherence of the Incoherence, fits you well.

this has to be the most interesting forum i have ever been
the amount of knowledgable people chilling on an incel forum

mirin the response

 

[Ghoulish]

this has to be the most interesting forum i have ever been
the amount of knowledgable people chilling on an incel forum

mirin the response

I just think the Humor of the forum is funny. Ive researched this stuff, and im a medical student so remembering tons of information is literally all I have to do.

 

[GhostBoySwag]

I just think the Humor of the forum is funny. Ive researched this stuff, and im a medical student so remembering tons of information is literally all I have to do.

better keep this account secret and dont leak anything of yourself