and then when they die they’ll go to hell to get molten metal poured on them

Forget Trump for a moment. This isn't diversity, this is misogyny. Zero girls should be forced or pressured to wear a hijab. This is sick.

It is good that Trump is bringing attention to this. We are watching the United States slowly being compromised in real time.

For instance, Quran 13:11, 74:37-38, and 18:29 state that Allah would never intervene. However, Quran 14:4 and 7:178 say that Allah can intervene and guide or misguide them to seal their hearts. How is that free will, and isn't that a contradiction?

Muslims - more progressive/liberal ones - tend to (rightfully) have problems with aisha being 9 years old. However, instead of believing that muhammad and islam are fallible, they instead resort to various means to show that somehow aisha was not 9. They use the argument that "all historical narratives" when taken a look at holistically, make it impossible for aisha to be 9 and her only possible age is 17 or 19. However, we will look at each of these arguments and see if they make any sense.

Argument number 1: Hisham was unreliable:

Besides the fact that countless muhaditheen have authenticated all of hisham's narrations here, thus proving his reliability, we can also disprove the claim that hisham's narrations in Iraq are weak.

Imam ad-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I‘tidal, 4/301-302:

> Hisham ibn ‘Urwah was one of the prominent and authoritative scholars, but when he grew old his memory failed, although he did not get confused, and** there is nothing valid in the view of Abu’l-Hasan ibn al-Qattan, which suggests that he and Suhayl ibn Abi Salih became confused and changed. Yes, the man changed a little and his memory was not as sound as it had been in his youth. He forgot some of the things he had memorized and he made some mistakes, but so what?! He was not infallible.** > > When he came to Iraq at the end of his life he passed on a great deal of knowledge, among which were a few hadiths that he did not remember well. Something similar happened to Malik, Shu‘bah, Waki‘ and other senior, trustworthy narrators**. So forget about this nonsense and mixing trustworthy scholars with weak narrators and those who became confused. Hisham was Shaykh al-Islam, and may Allah help us against what Ibn al-Qattan suggested and what ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kharash said: Malik did not approve of him because he got angry with him for going and narrating hadith in Iraq.**

https://imgur.com/a/nyIdbpD

Thus Ad-Dhahabi, one of the most authoratative scholars when it comes to jarh wa tadil, explicitly refuted this opinion of Abu’l-Hasan ibn al-Qattan and stated that Hisham is reliable even in Iraq.

However, the funny thing is that the scholar these people are flocking to, i.e. Abu'l-Hasan ibn al-Qattan, actually affirms that Aisha's marriage was done at 6 and consummation at 9 as well.

Ibn al Qattan mentions in al-Nazar fi Ahkam al-Nazar bi-Hassat al-Basar Pg 438:

> He (the Prophet ﷺ) was an adult, because he married her (ʿĀʾishah) when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine. .... > And that the Prophet ﷺ did not consummate the marriage with her until she reached the age of nine — this is without a doubt, as he passed away while she was eighteen years old

Thus the only support which explicitly thinks Hisham was unreliable also thinks the reports about aisha's marriage are fully sahih. The reason for this is that there are several fully sahih chains which do not include Hisham bin Urwah at all.

- Multiplicity of reports:

The reason why even ibn al Qattan, who thought of Hisham as unreliable in Iraq, considered these reports sahih is because there are a plethora of reports which either dont include Hisham at all, or they consist of Hisham reporting to someone in Medina, where his reports are unanimously considered authentic.

Islamqa mentions Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni categorizing which reporters heard from Hisham while he was in medina. They write:

Then he (Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni) named those who narrated it from Hisham ibn ‘Urwah among the scholars of Madinah. The reader should understand that this hadith is one of those that were also narrated by Hisham in Madinah. They were:

• Abu’z-Zinnad ‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwan
• His son ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi’z-Zinnad
• ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn ‘Urwah.

Thus just from Hisham, there are reports from when he was in medina i.e. the time when even ibn al Qattan believed he was authentic.

However, there are many reports simply without hisham present at all.

- Sahih muslim 1422c-d:

Sahih muslim 1422c has the chain:

> Abd ibn Ḥumayd -> ʿAbd al-Razzāq -> Maʿmar -> al-Zuhrī ->ʿUrwah, ->ʿĀʾishah

Sahih muslim 1422d has the chain:

> Yahya ibn Yahya → Ishaq ibn Ibrahim → Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah → Abu Kuraib → Abu Mu'awiyah → Al-A'mash → Ibrahim → Al-Aswad → A'ishah

Neither of these chains contain Hisham

- Sunan an-Nasa'i 3379, 3257, 3258

3379 has the chain:

> Ahmad ibn Sa'd ibn Al-Hakam ibn Abi Maryam → His uncle → Yahya ibn Ayyub → 'Umārah ibn Ghaziyyah → Muhammad ibn Ibrahim → Abu Salamah ibn 'Abd al-Rahman → A'ishah

3257 has the chain:

> Qutaybah → Abthar → Mutarrif → Abu Ishaq → Abu 'Ubaydah → A'ishah

3258 has the chain:

> Muhammad ibn Al-Ala → Ahmad ibn Harb → Abu Mu‘awiyah → Al-A‘mash → Ibrahim → Al-Aswad → A'ishah

None of these chains include Hisham bin Urwa, and they are all authentic. (3379 is hasan, 3257-8 are sahih).

- Sunan ibn Majah 1877:

> Ahmad ibn Sinan → Abu Ahmad → Isra’il → Abu Ishaq → Abu ‘Ubaydah → ‘Abdullah

Chain does not include Hisham, and infact isnt a narration from aisha but rather Abdullah.

- Musnad Ahmad 24152 and 25769

24152 (Kitāb Musnad Aḥmad – Ṭ. al-Risālah 40/183 ) has the chain:

> Abū Muʿāwiyah > al-Aʿmash > Ibrāhīm > al-Aswad > ʿĀʾishah

25769 (Kitāb Musnad Aḥmad – Ṭ. al-Risālah 42/501-502 ) has the chain:

> Muḥammad b. Bishr > Muḥammad b. ʿAmr > Abū Salamah And Yaḥyá > Lammā Halakat Khadījah Jāʾat Khawlah b. Ḥakīm Āmraʾah ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn

- Al-Tabarani 40, 52, 53, 62

The following are from Kitāb al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr li’l-Ṭabarānī

52 (23/22)

> Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh al-Ḥaḍramī → al-Ḥasan ibn Sahl al-Ḥannāṭ → Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Asadī → Sufyān → Saʿd ibn Ibrāhīm → al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad → ʿĀʾishah

53 (23/22) > Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh al-Ḥaḍramī → Saʿīd ibn ʿAmr al-Ashʿathī → ʿAbthar ibn al-Qāsim → Muṭarrif → Abū Isḥāq → Abū ʿUbaydah → ʿĀʾishah

40 (23/19) > Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Aʿyan al-Baghdādī → Abū al-Ashʿath Aḥmad ibn al-Miqdām → Zuhayr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ al-Qaysī → Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah → Qatādah

62 (23/26) > Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥaḍramī → ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar ibn Abān → Abū Usāmah → al-Ajlaḥ → Ibn Abī Mulaykah

None of these chains include Hisham.

- Sunan al Bayqahi 13659

Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (7/184) #13659

> Abū ʿAbdillāh al-Ḥāfiẓ → Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb → Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Warrāq → Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā → Abū Muʿāwiyah → al-Aʿmash → Ibrāhīm → al-Aswad → ʿĀʾishah

As we can see, NONE OF THESE CHAINS include Hisham. Thus it is completely stupid to say that if Hisham is (hypothetically) weak, this hadith becomes weak.

Only iraqi reports?

This objection is intimately connected with the previous one: the claim is that the narrative of the event in question only circulated by narrators in Iraq, and not Medina. This is simply a lie, because:

Al Zuhri (1) reports it from Urwah, from Aisha; so does Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan (2). Both al-Zuhri and ibn Dhakwan are from Medina.

Similarly, Yahya al-Lakhmi (3) reports it from Aisha in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa'd’s Tabaqat.

Abu Ishaq Sa'd ibn Ibrahim (4) reports it from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, from Aisha, in Tabarani.

Sufyan ibn Uyayna (5) – from Khurasan, Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya (6) – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it.

This hadith wasn't reported only by Urwah, as it was reported by Abd al-Malik ibn Umayr (7), al-Aswad (8), Ibn Abu Mulayka (9), Abu Salama ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Awf (10), Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib (11), Abu Ubayda (12) (Amir ibn Abd Allah ibn Masud).

The report is mass-transmitted, if anyone were to dismiss the Hadith, you would have to dismiss virtually everything you know about Muhammad.

Argument number 2: Age of Asma:

The second argument brought forth by apologists is the following:

> Asma who is Aisha's sister, was 10 years older than Aisha. She died at the age of 100 around in 73AH or 695AD. Asma was born in 596AD and was 14 years old when Islam began. Aisha would have been 4 when Islam began in 610AD. This means Aisha would have been born in 606AD. At the time of migration Asma would have been around 27 years old. If Aisha was 10 years younger than her, then she would have been around 17 years old during the migration and thus 18 years old during the marriage a year later. Or if other narrations are correct then she would have been 14-15 when she was married and 17-18 when the marriage was consummated a year after the migration in 623AD.

This argument stands on 3 pieces of data:

1. Asma was exactly 10 years older than Aisha
2. Asma died at the age of 100 in 73 AH
3. Asma was born in 596 AD, or 27 years before Hijrah.

Each of these can be criticized, however the main point is (1). If it is not true, then the entire argument crumbles as we can no longer use the age of Asma to calculate the age of aisha.

Age difference of 10 years:

Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al Munajjid writes in the following Islamqa article: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/124483/how-old-was-aishah-when-she-married-the-prophet

> ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi’z-Zinnad (100-174 AH) is the only one who stated that the difference in age between Asma and ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with them both) was ten years

And this is true, all chains which mention this age difference include ibn abi as Zinnad.

In total there are two reports that talk about this. The first is in Tarikh Dimashq 69/10 by Ibn Asakir:

> Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Maliki <– Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahid as-Sulami <– My grandfather Abu Bakr <– Abu Muhammad ibn Zabr <– Ahmad ibn Sa‘d ibn Ibrahim az-Zuhri <– Muhammad ibn Abi Safwan <– al-Asma‘i <– Ibn Abi’z-Zinaad

The second report is mentioned by Ibn Abd al-Barr in Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab (2/616):

> Ahmad ibn Qasim <– Muhammad ibn Mu‘awiyah <– Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Jamil <– Isma‘el ibn Ishaq al-Qadi <– Nasr ibn ‘Ali <– al-Asma‘i <– Ibn Abi’z-Zinaad told us: Asma’ bint Abi Bakr, who was ten years or so older…..

Both of these chains include ibn abi az zinaad.

However, ibn abi az zinnad is weak according to several scholars.

- Weakness of ibn abi az zinnad:

• Ibn Hammad Al-Aqili wrote in Kitab Ad-Du'afa' Al-Kabir (2/340):

> Yahya Ibn Ma’een said: “He is weak…. His hadith is not invoked as evidence” > .... > I heard Yahya ibn Ma'in saying: > > “I am astonished at those who consider Fulayh and Ibn Abi al-Zinad as among the hadith narrators." > ..... > Imam Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) said: “Weak (Daif)… I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about Ibn Abu Zinad. He said: He is weak in hadith.”

• Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi wrote in Al-Kamal fi Asma al-Rijal (6/446):

> “Abu Hatim... said: His Hadith can be written but cannot be used as proof.”

• Imam Ibn Hibban mentioned in Kitab al-Majruhin min al-Muhaddithin, (2/21)

> He (Ibn abi al zinad) was among those who would uniquely narrate inverted versions of transmissions from the authentic ones, which was due to his poor memorization and frequent mistakes. Therefore, his reports should not be accepted as evidence when he stands alone.

• Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, (2/318-19)

> Abdur-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad: Abdullah ibn Dhakwan, al-Madani, a freedman of Quraysh > .............. > Rather: Weak, considered as such in follow-ups and evidences. __He was weakened by Yahya ibn Ma'īn, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Fallas, Ibn Sa'd, Abu Zur'ah al-Razi, al-Nasa'i, Ibn 'Adi, Ibn Hibban, and al-Saji.

• Imam Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī said in Kitāb al-Muttafiq wa al-Muftariq (12/1253)

> Ibn Abi al-Zinad is considered very weak (da‘īf jiddan) by the People of Knowledge (ahlul aql), and his narrations cannot be used as evidence.

Shekh saleh al munajjid mentions the opinions of several scholars in his article in Islamqa https://islamqa.info/en/answers/124483/how-old-was-aishah-when-she-married-the-prophet :

> Most of the scholars regarded ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi’z-Zinnad himself as da‘if (weak). > In his biography of him in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (6/172), Imam Ahmad is quoted as saying concerning him: He is mudtarab al-hadith (his hadeeth is faulty). > Ibn Ma‘in is quoted as saying: He is not one of those whom the scholars of hadith quote as evidence. > ‘Ali ibn al-Madini is quoted as saying: Whatever he narrated in Madinah is sahih, but whatever he narrated in Baghdad was corrupted by the Baghdadis. I saw ‘Abd ar-Rahman – i.e., Ibn Mahdi – draw a line through the hadith of ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi’z-Zinnad. > Abu Hatim said: His hadith may be written down but it may not be quoted as evidence. > An-Nasai said: His hadith cannot be quoted as evidence. > > With regard to at-Tirmidhi describing him as thiqah (trustworthy) in his Sunan, following hadith no. 1755, this contradicts the criticism of the previous commentator, and criticism (of a narrator) takes precedence over praise, especially with regard to the reports that were narrated only by ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi’z-Zinnad , especially when he says something that is contrary to what is well-known in the books of the Sunnah and history.

Thus all reports mentioning this age difference are automatically da'if, and cannot be used as evidence to disprove definitely sahih reports.

However, the second report by ibn abd al bar in Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab (2/616) shows that the narrators werent sure of the exact difference:

> “Ahmad ibn Qasim, from Muhammad ibn Mu‘awiyah, from Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Jamil, from Isma‘el ibn Ishaq al-Qadi, from Nasr ibn Ali, from al-Asma‘i, from Ibn Abu Al-Zinad who said: Asma bint Abu Bakr was older than Aisha by ten years or so.”

The "or so" shows that they werent sure of the exact difference, and thus cannot be used as evidence to go against sahih reports.

While this report too is weak and dismissable due to ibn abi al zinad, this is stronger than other reports since it includes Nasr bin Ali instead of ibn abi safwan. Sheikh saleh al munajjid says:

> According to the report of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, he said: “She (Asma) was ten years or so older than ‘Aishah.”__ This report is more sound than the report of Ibn ‘Asakir__, because Nasr ibn ‘Ali, who narrated it from al-Asma‘i in the isnad of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr is thiqah (trustworthy), as it says in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, 10/431. __With regard to Muhammad ibn Abi Safwan, the narrator from al-Asma‘i in the isnad of Ibn ‘Asakir, no one described him as trustworthy. __

He says in another article:

> The Arabic phrase translated here as “more than ten”__ may refer to any number between thirteen and twenty__.

Thus while all reports regarding this age difference are da'if, the stronger of the reports actually displays uncertainty about the age difference, permitting a difference up to twenty years. Therefore, the entire objection concering this age difference is dismissable since

Sahih narrations vs historical reports:

Even if we were to take the age difference between asma and aisha as 10 years, that would not be problematic since we will just adjust our other historical sources. What i mean by historical sources are dates and ages given in books of history like al bidaya wal nihaya by ibn kathir or the tarikh of al tabari. it does not mean changing information given to us by sahih narrations. This is exactly what al dhahabi does when he is considering this report by ibn abi al zinad.

Adh-Dhahabi wrote in Siyar Alaam an-Nubala (4/408):

> “Ibn Abu al-Zinad said: She was ten years older than Aisha. > I (adh-Dhahabi) say: __Based on that, her age would have been ninety-one years. __ > > Hisham ibn Urwah, on the other hand, said: She lived for one hundred years and not one of her teeth fell out.”

Aside from the incredibly funny fact of asmas "100 year age" being a report by Hisham, we can see clearly how al dhahabi deals with conflicting historical reports: He changes the weaker reports from the sirah and books of history to make them align with sahih narrations. He does not change the sahih narrations or declare them weak, as that is incredibly stupid.

Thus the entire voyage is useless as what modernists are doing here is that they are trying to use either weak, fabricated or chainless reports to try and disprove sahih reports. As we know that the reports are certainly sahih and numerous, the modernists are basically trying to ignore what aisha herself said about her age and then using weak reports to calculate her age, while sitting in their homes 2000 miles away from aisha's grave roughly 1400 years later. It is just so incredibly stupid.

The battle of badr and Uhd:

Modernists say that:

1. The requirement for anyone to be on the battlefield is 15 years
2. Aisha was on the battlefield of badr and uhd
3. Therefore, aisha was atleast 15 by badr and uhd

However, this interpretation has several problems For one, there is no record of aisha being at the battle of badr in any sahih narration. The only narrations we have place aisha at uhd.

- Sahih bukhari 2880:

> On the day (of the battle) of Uhad when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw `Aisha bint Abu Bakr and Um Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, "carrying the water skins on their backs"). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people. . However, the 15 year age limit was imposed for combatants only. Aisha was not fighting in the war, she was only providing water to the people.

Imam Nawawi wrote in his sharh of muslim 13/12:

> (Chapter: Clarification of the age of puberty — which is the age at which one is considered among the fighters and upon whom the rulings of men apply in matters of combat and other rulings.)

.....

> This is evidence for defining the age of puberty as fifteen years, and this is the madhhab (legal view) of al-Shafi‘i, al-Awza‘i, Ibn Wahb, Ahmad, and others. They said that upon completing fifteen years, one becomes legally accountable (mukallaf), even if he has not yet experienced a wet dream (i.e., signs of puberty). Thus, rulings apply to him — such as the obligation of worship and others — and he becomes entitled to a man’s share of the spoils of war and is to be killed if he is from the people of war

.....

> His statement: (He did not approve me and then approved me) — the meaning is that he regarded him as a man upon whom the rulings of fighting men apply.

Thus he clearly thought this ruling was about fighting men because:

1. His chapter title makes that clear enough, that this is about one upon whom the rulings of men apply in matters of combat.

2. He talks about a man's share of the spoils of war

3. He says that the ruling of fighting men applies on him.

Sheikh Gibril al Haddad mentioned the same thing in his takedown of this modern interpretation of Aysha's age. See here:

> First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

It is not allowed for a random layman to make legal rulings through qiyas or analogy. That is something only scholars can do.

Explanation on Qiyas:

Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī said:

> [The Meaning of the Scholars’ Phrase: "Qiyās maʿa al-Fāriq" (Analogy with a Difference)] > > Question: > We request your explanation of the jurists’ (may Allah have mercy on them) expression: "Qiyās maʿa al-Fāriq"? > > Answer: > Analogy (qiyās) is a valid legal proof (evidence) in Islamic law. However, no one is allowed to use it unless they know its proper conditions according to the Sharia. The early generations of scholars and the leading jurists, for over ten centuries, have established the rules and conditions for using this legal tool. Therefore, no one should engage in making analogies unless they are well-versed in its pillars and conditions — that is, the recognized elements required for applying and validating it. > > A person must not make an analogy between two things without proper knowledge, as doing so could lead to making lawful what Allah has forbidden or forbidding what Allah has permitted. Reasoning (ra’y) can be dangerous if misused — it is a double-edged sword. It can either contribute to sound legal understanding, clarity in rulings, and resolving complex issues, or it can lead to misguidance — God forbid. > > For this reason, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) said in his famous letter to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī — one of the greatest legal documents in Islamic jurisprudence and discussed extensively by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), who explained it over more than 100 pages — ʿUmar wrote: > > “Understand the similarities and analogies, then judge matters based on their counterparts.”

> So, the process begins with understanding: > What is the original case (aṣl)? > What is the effective cause (ʿillah) that connects the original case and the new one (farʿ)? > What is the derived ruling being sought through the analogy? > > The Four Pillars of Qiyās: > The new case (farʿ) — which is under consideration and for which no direct text exists. > > The original case (aṣl) — agreed upon by both parties. > > The ruling (ḥukm) — known and established for the original case. > > The effective cause (ʿillah) — the common link between the original and the new case. > > An Example: > We say: It is not allowed to trade unequal amounts of rice just as it is not allowed in dates, due to a common cause. > > For the Ḥanafīs: the cause is that both are measured by volume (kail), > > For the Mālikīs: the cause is that both are staple foods and stored (qūt and id-dikhār), > > For the Shāfiʿīs: the cause is taste (ṭaʿm), > > For the Ḥanbalīs: either taste alone, or taste plus weight or volume, depending on the narration. > > So here, rice is the farʿ (no direct text about it), and dates are the aṣl (textually prohibited from unequal exchange). The ruling is the prohibition of inequality, and the cause is as outlined above. Thus, qiyas (analogy) is valid in this case. > > Among the conditions for the original case (the asl) used in analogy (qiyas) is that it must not deviate from the norms of analogy. It must be suitable to serve as a basis upon which other cases can be analogized. If it deviates from the norms of analogy, then it is invalid as a basis.

> For example: If a man accuses his wife—God forbid—of adultery, and he has no evidence, then he invokes li‘ān (mutual cursing). As the Prophet ﷺ said: “Either provide evidence or face the punishment on your back.” This was in the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas when Hilal ibn Umayyah accused his wife of adultery with Sharik ibn Sahma’. The Prophet ﷺ said to him: “Either provide evidence or face the punishment on your back.” Hilal then complained to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and the Prophet ﷺ said: “Qur’an has been revealed concerning you and your wife.” So they both performed li‘ān. > > Thus, a man and his wife perform li‘ān if he accuses her. But if, for example, a brother accuses his brother—God forbid—does li‘ān apply between them? Suppose someone ignorant of the principles of analogy says: Li‘ān should apply between brothers just as it applies between husband and wife, on the basis that both involve a blood relationship. We would say: This is a corrupt analogy, because the original case (asl)—which is the li‘ān between spouses—deviates from the norms of analogy, and thus it is not valid to use it as a basis for qiyas. > > So, there are strict conditions and limits to analogy. For example, consider socks: > In the Prophet’s time, socks were thick and similar to leather footwear (khuff), which could withstand walking and provide foot coverage. If someone makes an analogy to allow wiping over thin or transparent socks, as one does over khuff, this would be considered a "qiyās maʿa al-fāriq" — an analogy with a critical difference. > > Why? Because: > > Thin socks don’t cover and protect the foot like khuff. > > The original ruling is a concession (rukhṣa), so it should remain limited to what was established in the Sunnah. > > Therefore, for those who don’t accept wiping over light socks, they would argue that doing so is based on a qiyās maʿa al-fāriq — since the difference (durability, coverage) is significant and undermines the analogy.

> فالقياس مع الفارق قادح من قوادح القياس الأربعة عشر، وإذا سلّم الخصم أن هذا الفارق مؤثر فحينئذٍ يبطل قياسه، أو يلزم بدليل آخر بدلاً عنه، والله تعالى أعلم. > Thus, qiyās maʿa al-fāriq (analogy with a relevant difference) is considered one of the fourteen recognized flaws (qawādiḥ) that invalidate qiyas (analogy). If the opponent concedes that this difference is significant and impactful, then their analogy becomes invalid, and they must support their argument with another type of evidence instead. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Source: Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī in Kitāb Sharḥ Zād al-Mustaqniʿ, (262/15)

• Islamweb Audio Tape can be found here.

Thus a random layman (like most people making these arguments) cannot apply a ruling which is for men physically fighting in a battlefield to woman because there may be stark differences, like:

• The ruling may be applied to men at 15 because at that age most boys complete puberty and become physically strong, which is needed for battle. This would not apply to women providing water as a young 9 year old girl can also provide water to dying combatants.
• The ruling may be applied because a boy needs to be atleast 15, since at that age men can both handle enemy attacks and also look more menacing as they start to grow a beard. This does not apply to non-combatants.
• The ruling may be applied because a 15 year old combatant gets the mental maturity to chip in on battle strategies, when a young boy can't. This would not apply to non combatants. etc. etc.

Thus only a qualified legal scholar, with agreement from other scholars (so this isnt a fringe, discardable opinion), can apply this ruling to women too, and im pretty sure there isnt any who has. Thus this argument is far too weak to overturn sahih narrations.

Also to Note that Multiple Sahih hadiths narrate young boys in the battle field, even if not fighting:

> Narrated Anas: > > Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and he was a young boy then. His mother came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! You know how dear Haritha is to me. If he is in Paradise, I shall remain patient, and hope for reward from Allah, but if it is not so, then you shall see what I do?" He said, "May Allah be merciful to you! Have you lost your senses? Do you think there is only one Paradise? There are many Paradises and your son is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al- Firdaus."- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3982

> While I was fighting in the front file on the day (of the battle) of Badr, suddenly I looked behind and saw on my right and left two young boys and did not feel safe by standing between them. Then one of them asked me secretly so that his companion may not hear, "O Uncle! Show me Abu Jahl." I said, "O nephew! What will you do to him?" He said, "I have promised Allah that if I see him (i.e. Abu Jahl), I will either kill him or be killed before I kill him." Then the other said the same to me secretly so that his companion should not hear. I would not have been pleased to be in between two other men instead of them. Then I pointed him (i.e. Abu Jahl) out to them. Both of them attacked him like two hawks till they knocked him down. Those two boys were the sons of 'Afra' (i.e. an Ansari woman).- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3988

Aisha born in the Jahalliya according to Tabari:

Some people claim that Tabari in his Tarikh recorded that all four children of Abu bakr were born in the jahalliya. If true, this would mean aisha was atleast 14 by the time of the hijra. However, this is based on a complete misinterpretation of the words of al Tabari.

The actual words of al tabari are recorded in Kitāb Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī = Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk, wa-Ṣilat Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī (3/425):

> Ali Ibn Muhammad narrated that someone told him in addition to his teachers, that Abu Bakr got married during the pre-Islamic period to Qatelah – __which was what Waqidi and Al-Kalbi also agreed upon as well __– they said: she is Qatelah bint Abdul uzza Ibn Abd Ibn Asad Ibn Jabir Ibn Malik Ibn Hasal Ibn Amir Ibn Luai who gave birth to Abdullah and Asma. He got married, during the pre-Islamic period as well to Umm rooman bint Amir Ibn Uwaimir Ibn Abdush shams Ibn Utaab Ibn Udhinah Ibn Subai Ibn Dahmaan Ibn Al-Harith Ibn Ghanam Ibn Malik Ibn Kinaanah who gave birth to Aisha and Abdur Rahman. > So all four children were begotten by those two wives whom we mentioned that he married during the pre-Islamic period.

See what he's saying here? He isnt saying the four children were born in the Jahilliya, he is saying that the MOTHERS of these 4 children got married to Abu bakr in the jahilliya. He does not comment on when the children themselves were born at all.

Thus this defense is also completely false.

The age of Fatima:

This claim is put forward as follows:

> According to Ibn Hajar,__ Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha__ (ra).__ Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old.__ Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Thus the main two claims are:

1. Fatima was 5 years older than aisha
2. Fatima was born when the prophet was 35

And it is states that ibn hajr said both of these. While it is true that ibn Hajr stated (1), saying he stated (2) was true is a lie upon him.

Ibn Hajr mentioned in Al-Isaabah (8/231)

> There is also a disagreement regarding the year of Fatimah’s birth. > Al-Waqidi narrated, through Abu Ja‘far al-Baqir, that al-‘Abbas said: Fatimah was born when the Ka‘bah was being rebuilt, and the Prophet ﷺ was 35 years old at the time. This was also the opinion of al-Mada’ini. > > Abu ‘Umar reported from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Ja‘far al-Hashimi that she was born in the 41st year after the Prophet’s ﷺ birth. Her birth occurred a little before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission—about a year or slightly more. She was about five years older than ‘A’ishah

As we can see, ibn hajr isnt taking a stance here. He is stating that there is a difference of opinion on when fatima was even born. The narration that she was born when the prophet was 35 is narrated by the notorious al Waqidi. He is the most denounced character in ilm al Hadith. See this. Therefore this narration is fully weak. However, if we take the second year given by ibn hajr (41 years old) then that corresponds perfectly with the age of aisha.

Thus this objection also fails.

The majority hold as proof the statement of the Exalted: {and those who have not menstruated} [al-Ṭalāq: 4], in which Allah clarified the waiting period (‘iddah) of the minor girl; and the legal cause for the waiting period is marriage, which affirms the marriage of the minor girl. And what is meant by His statement, the Exalted, {until they reach marriageable age} [al-Nisāʾ: 6] is puberty. And the hadith of ʿĀʾishah — may Allah the Exalted be pleased with her — is well-known and close to being mutawātir: for indeed the Prophet ﷺ married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, and she remained with him for nine years.- https://shamela.ws/book/427/2426#:~:text=%D9%88%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D9%82%D9%8E%D9%88%D9%92%D9%84%D9%87%20%D8%AA%D9%8E%D8%B9%D9%8E%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8E%D9%89,%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87%20%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%B9%20%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86.

Abū Muḥammad said: The proof for permitting the father to marry off his young virgin daughter is the marriage of Abū Bakr — may Allah be pleased with him — of the Prophet ﷺ to ʿĀʾishah — may Allah be pleased with her — when she was six years old. This is a matter well-known, such that there is no need to present its chain of transmission. Whoever claims that this was specific (to him) — his statement is not to be considered, due to the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: {Indeed, there is for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for whoever hopes for Allah and the Last Day} [al-Aḥzāb: 21]. So everything he — peace and blessings be upon him — did, we are to take him as an example in it, unless a text comes stating that it was specific to him.- https://shamela.ws/book/767/3787#p1

For like ten pages this goes over all the chains and scholarly opinion- https://ketabonline.com/ar/books/96748/read?part=1&page=23&index=5325943

Arabic: https://waqfeya.com/books/%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-5fdf2a32dfda451f89f4c9d240199aaf

https://shamela.ws/book/1708/922

English: https://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=42

https://imgur.com/a/vWy2S7f

Are they like this because they never personally experienced the negative effects of Islam?

When I see ex-Muslims like this, I can't help thinking that they must be okay with, or even support, Sharia law.

For people who want the reference: An nisa 4:34

Meet Joey Jo-Jo, my family’s dog. He’s precious. I can’t believe Islam hates what gives my family the will to go on. It’s sad!

Published in the article "Sclavenfang in Afrika" (Die Gartenlaube, 1872) by Robert

Hartmann, who was an eye witness. The attackers are Muslim, Arabic-speaking nomads from the southern Gezira in what is now Sudan, although their tribal affiliation is not specified. The victims are villagers of the animist Dinka people living near the White Nile. Back then Sudan was divided into two spheres: the largely Islamic north governed by the Turks and the non-Islamic, much more decentralized south. Slave raids into the south were common, either by government troops or independently by warlords or tribesmen living along the frontier, as in this case. Hartmann describes how the raiding party ("Gum") of several dozen men would set out and attack the villagers late at night. After initially killing everyone in sight they quickly shifted to killing only those who actively fought back. The batte was only a matter of minutes. Those who survived were enslaved and marched back, either serving the nomads as serfs or being sold to wandering merchants.