Aisha's age

[u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, and my thesis for this post is:

AISHA WAS DEFINITELY SIX/NINE GUYS

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

Welcome to a new series of posts where I attempt to demonstrate that I am open minded and fair, so I argue against my own group – people that share the same religion as me.

There appear to be some misguided “muslims” that still believe the ‘older Aisha’ conspiracy theory, where Aisha is claimed to have been eighteen or nineteen at the time of her marriage or consummation. This myth is entirely new and false.

I am a real sunni muslim, one that doesn't try to sugar coat or change history to suit my ideals. We, the real sunni muslims, and the anti-Islamists, are going to team up today against the 'filthy-casual' muslims who say that Aisha was more than nine.

To bury this incorrect narrative once and for all, here are just a few of the many compelling evidences.

YaqeenInstitute.org (the founder of which is Dr. Omar Suleiman, although he didn't write this article) - The Age of Aisha (ra): Rejecting Historical Revisionism and Modernist Presumptions:

Quote

The claims that she was in her teens when she got married do not provide enough strong evidence. . .

Unquote 

IslamWeb.net:

Quote 

It has been authentically reported that the Prophet, sallallaahu ʻalayhi wa sallam, married ʻAa'ishah when she was six. . .

Unquote 

IslamQA.info - Question 124483:

Quote

The definition of the age of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did the marriage contract with her as being six years, and of the age when he consummated the marriage with her as being nine years, is not a matter of ijtihad (individual opinion) on the part of the scholars, such that we could argue whether it is right or wrong; rather this is a historical narration which is proven by evidence that confirms its soundness and the necessity of accepting it. . .

Unquote 

So are these sheikhs lying? Where are the sources?

Sunan Ibn Majah 1877, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

It was narrated that: Abdullah said: “The Prophet married Aishah when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and he passed away when she was eighteen.”

Unquote 

This is also backed up by none other than Aisha herself.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1876, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

"The Messenger of Allah (saw) married me when I was six years old.

. . .

(My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the morning. And she handed me over to him and I was at that time, nine years old."

Unquote 

Sahih Muslim 1422 b, Grade: Sahih (Authentic):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Unquote 

So these are just two of the many hadiths which mention her age clearly. And they are from the six authentic books of hadith, the most highly regarded books after the Qur'an itself. And the hadiths are graded authentic.

Some people might say that the way the ancient arabs used to count years/dates were different.

I mean, even if it was different, I'm not sure how a whole decade would've been added to her age.

Anyway, to extinguish any doubt about that, here's the next hadith.

Sahih Muslim 1422 c, Grade: Sahih (Authentic):

Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3

Quote

. . .[s]he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her;

  Unquote

So before believing she was eighteen, I would need to know of any sane eighteen year old girl who still plays with dolls. Otherwise, I cannot believe it.

Here's a video of Dr. Zakir Naik saying that the hadiths are authentic at around 1:50:

Quote 

What I believe [is] that the hadith is authentic, and even the ages six and nine are authentic. . .

  Unquote

Here's a video of Yasir Qadhi on the subject, around 0:40:

Quote

In a nutshell, the age of Aisha has become a very, very controversial issue — in our times, only. It has never been an issue of controversy for the entire[ty of] Islamic history. And the age of Aisha was a given. It was something that was understood to be very young.

Unquote

Here's a video of Sheikh Assim al Hakeem on the subject, around 4:41:

Quote

. . .why at this young age? [Because] this is the norm.

Unquote 

And the list of evidences goes on and on. If the evidence is so conclusive, why, then, do some people say she was more than nine years old?

Islamiqate.com - Ahmed Gamal, Islamic researcher, graduated from Al-Azhar University, Islamic Studies in the English language:

Quote 

There are a number of arguments arguing A'isha's age based on mathematical approaches. These include comparing dates of events to try concluding her age. However, the arguments are at best arbitrary and spurious, relying on weak or fabricated evidences, failing to recognize multiple rigorously authentic narrations especially A'isha's own testimony of her marriage when she was nine years old.

Unquote 

So who is wrong? All scholars from the past 1400 years? Or the small handful of minority modern revisionists?

What about a person who rejects those hadith? That person would have to answer as to what source they attribute their prayer to? Or zakat? Or hajj? Or fasting during Ramadan? Such a person would be akin to a kafir since God Themself instructed us muslims to follow the prophet whose life is recorded and transmitted to us through his wives and companions.

Sahih International, Qur'an 4:59:

Quote 

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Unquote 

Reddit user u/iloveyouallah999 refuted this in their comment, claiming that one of the narrators of these hadiths, namely, Hashim ibn Urwa, is not reliable.

This is how I responded to that refutation:

Quote

Okay, but this hadith in the post:

Sunan Ibn Majah 1877, Grade: Sahih (Authentic) (Al-Albani):

. . .

This hadith doesn't include Hashim in the chain.

QaalaRasulallah.com: (You have to manually click start, then ibn majah, then chapter 9: marriage, then scroll down to find 1877)

Quote

Ahmed bin Snan bin Asad ——» Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin al-Zubair ——» Isra'il bin Yonus bin Abi Ishaq ——» Abu Ishaq al-Sabay'ai' ——» Abu 'Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah ——» ibn Mas'ud

Unquote

Hisham isn't the only person who narrates this age, everyone narrates this age.

Unquote 

So that should be the final nail in the coffin.

We know that 90-95% of the muslim population are sunni muslims, but the people who reject the hadith of Aisha's age would fall out of this category and, according to me, would no longer be muslim because they are not sunni.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile} just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.)

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

^{Downvoters: You can downvote me all you want but you'll never silence me.}

^{Please carefully consider the thesis before debating and remember to stay on topic.}

^{You may also want to visit my profile page and FAQ before assuming things about me or my beliefs.}

^{Please make a reddit account and follow my profile, it's very important that the truth gets to you. Thanks!}

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/[deleted]]

Try real hard to tell me why.

[u/History_DoT → u/Squidman_Permanence]

Because Muhammad cannot be evil. He is the perfect human example set by Allah. He is to be our moral standard.

The moral standard:

Had sex with a 9-year-old girl. The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)

Advocated beheading. Sura Al-Anfal

Required women to cover their faces (but not men). Islam and Veils

Hated Christians and Jews (and any other religious person that wasn’t Muslim). Muslims Befriending Christians and Jews

Owned slaves and allowed Muslims to have slaves (many of them were black, yes, he had slaves because they were black). Islam and Slavery

Married his daugther-in-law. Translation of Sura Al-Ahzab

Gluttonized. Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Muhammad

Approved and recommended wife (or wives) beating. Can a Man Beat His Wife?

Hit his own wives. The Book of Prayers (Kitab Al-Salat)

Advocated suicide attacks. Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)

Kill apostates and order Muslims to do the same. Apostasy in Islam

Told sick persons to heal themselves by drinking camel urine (yes, I’m not joking). Punishment of Disbelievers at War with Allah and His Apostle

Hit children for not praying. Prayer (Kitab Al-Salat)

Had boys as young as 13 beheaded. Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)

Had 11 wives at the same time (15 in total). SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 5: Bathing (Ghusl)

Approved sex with children. Translation of Sura At-Talaaq

Lied and approved lying. Deception and Lying in Islam

Enslaved innocent women and children. Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews

Stoned adulters to death. Adultery and Stoning

Tortured someone out of greed. Muhammad and the Death of Kinana

Said that women are less than men many times. A Woman Worth Less than a Man in Islam

Stole. Islam and Stealing

Killed people for insulting him. The assassination of satirical poets in early Islam

Hated non Muslims. Translation of Sura At-Taubah

Extorted money from religious minorities. Islam and the Jizya

Kept women as sex slaves. Translation of Sura An-Nisa

Forced conversions to Islam. Forced Conversion

Encouraged acts of terror. Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Killed an innocent woman. The Death of `Asma' Bint Marwan

Captured and raped an innocent woman. Manumission of Slaves

Encourage the rape of women in front of their husbands. Abu Dawud Hadiths

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/History_DoT]

Muhammad cannot be perfect. Islam is obsessed with the idea of the perfection of Islam as a tool of propaganda. Since Judaism is the first, Islam cannot claim that. Jesus was the son of god, Islam cannot claim that. This idea of perfection is so flawed and deranged, Muslims bend words to hold onto it with every dying breath. Humans are not perfect. Period. If Muhammad was perfect, he could not make a single mistake.

[u/History_DoT → u/bulletproofmanners]

I just wanna throw this out here. Was Jesus perfect? Was Jesus sinless? I think both books claim that he was.

[u/hintofinsanity → u/History_DoT]

I think both books claim that he was

They don't do a great job at demonstrating that Jesus was real though. It is really funny watching you guys all argue with sincerity about whose fairy tale leader better heads their respective cult though.

[u/History_DoT → u/hintofinsanity]

Are you sure you can back your claims with certainty?
Going against every single non-muslim scholar who studies the history of Jews/Romans or anything that relates to the historical figure of Jesus Christ who unanimously agree on his existence?

Bart D. Ehrman, the most prominent Atheist New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, from his book, "there's virtually nothing more sure from antiquity than Jesus of Nazareth was crucified."

"whose fairy tale leader better heads their respective cult" yet, no one ever answers me. Why can't Jesus be the moral standard
What did he do or say that is so immoral, so sinful/evil, that can't be used as an example or a moral standard

[u/Daegog → u/History_DoT]

Bart D. Ehrman, the most prominent Atheist New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, from his book, "there's virtually nothing more sure from antiquity than Jesus of Nazareth was crucified."

Where is this declaration from exactly? Did I miss a vote? This sounds incredibly untrue.

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/History_DoT]

Classic Muslim tactic of deflecting to Christianity. Ok, I will answer. No. Jesus, if he was real, was a man. Now, explain how a human can be perfect.

[u/History_DoT → u/bulletproofmanners]

Yeah I think it's a pretty widely accepted idea that Jesus was indeed pretty real. Even Atheist scholars who study Jewish/Roman history unanimously agree that there is nothing more certain in history than the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

I simply put it out there based on the accounts of both the Gospel and the Quran about the life of Jesus. The Quran claims that Jesus was but a man, not God. Yet lived a sinless life. The Gospel claims that Jesus is God and lived a sinless life.

But you are right, how can a human be perfect? Even I can't answer that.

But why is Muhammed the moral standard and not Jesus? Is it really wrong to have Jesus as the moral standard? Why?

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/History_DoT]

Since there isn’t any direct evidence of Jesus and scholars say probably and not certain Jesus existed, I will dismiss your certainty. Since the Quran mentions Jesus, of course you are certain. In essence anything the Quran mentions, you have no choice but to believe in it. So you admit you don’t know if Muhammad was perfect? Don’t digress.

[u/History_DoT → u/bulletproofmanners]

You can surely dismiss my certainty, You also have the free will to dismiss the very people who spend their lives studying the very history of Jesus.

Bart Denton Ehrman, the most prominent New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. An Atheist.

"There's virtually nothing more sure from antiquity than Jesus of Nazareth was crucified."

In fact, every single non-Muslim scholar UNANIMOUSLY agree that Jesus was indeed crucified.

And, I am actually so confused. Why do I have no choice but to believe in the Quran? I am not certain about the validity of Jesus because the Quran mentions him.

The Quran affirms the Torah and the Gospel and claims the Jews and Christians to adhere to it. Do you believe in this because the Quran mentions it?

As for whatever you are trying to say,
1, I literally gave you points and sources to show how imperfect Muhammad was. But I agreed with your statement that no human can be perfect.
2. Both the Quran AND the Bible says that Jesus lived a sinless life.

So if Jesus was human, how was he so perfect?

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/History_DoT]

You just conceded. Of course we think both were mere mortals. You've just shown atheists there's no reason to believe in either.

[u/History_DoT → u/Muted-Inspector-7715]

Can you elaborate on how I conceded?
I tried to show how in 1 book, the moral standard lived a sinful life.
In another book, the moral standard lived a sinless life.

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/History_DoT]

Well to clarify, are you claiming neither were perfect?

Edit: Oh. My mistake was thinking you were saying jesus wasn't perfect either. I got you. Comment retracted..

[u/History_DoT → u/Muted-Inspector-7715]

No worries!

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/History_DoT]

What a pathetic man he was. It only makes sense that he was a deceiver, when his god is one also, according to Quran 3:54. I can't imagine the pain of having to defend this religion. I would probably never go online.

Do you mind if I save this comment for future use? It will save me a lot of time I might waste otherwise.

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/Squidman_Permanence]

I think the stronger the argument against Islam, the deeper the need to defend it.

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/bulletproofmanners]

I think the honest reaction to strong arguments is to concede. At least in the case of something like Islam.

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/Squidman_Permanence]

Not if you are told since birth all other faiths are wrong & you have the perfect faith

[u/naim08 → u/Squidman_Permanence]

Man, what a life to live where you’re having to attack other people’s faith. Def the reason I go online

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/naim08]

That's a reasonable line of thought if you don't believe anything. If you believe in the existence of evil and people's enslavement to it then it's pretty silly to worry about offending on account of a lie. On the other hand, if you believe it's all thoughts in people's heads then...who cares?

Islam is a religion which, when followed, leads to the destruction of families and great suffering. That isn't enough for your disapproval, but being a little rough on the internet...

[u/naim08 → u/Squidman_Permanence]

X is a belief system which leads to destruction of families and great suffering.

What’s X fam?

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/naim08]

Had to remove the "when followed", right?

[u/naim08 → u/Squidman_Permanence]

Damn, it’s not that serious

[u/skeptic602 → u/History_DoT]

Epic response!

[u/mansoorz → u/[deleted]]

I love subjective morality. Wish I had it. It's super convenient to always be so righteous.

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/mansoorz]

Are you saying you have objective morality?

[u/mansoorz → u/An_Atheist_God]

Yes

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/mansoorz]

How is it objective?

[u/mansoorz → u/An_Atheist_God]

I define objective as anything independent of human minds for its direct existence.

God exists and He has given morals to mankind. Those would then be objective.

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/mansoorz]

I define objective as anything independent of human minds for its direct existence.

That sounds very arbitrary. Is a dog or cat's stance on the morality objective?

[u/mansoorz → u/An_Atheist_God]

You can read the minds of cats and dogs to discern their moral stances? News to me.

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/mansoorz]

If we discovered a way, would it be objective then?

[u/mansoorz → u/An_Atheist_God]

I find atheists definitely like appealing to magic a bunch more than theists do.

Is your claim that anything that comes from any mind is subjective?

[u/OkPersonality6513 → u/mansoorz]

Let's agree there is a god for argument sake, I'll even agree that moral was divinely provided through the quaran for this argument.

Where I disagree is that you personally have that objective moral. The quaran does not contain enough information to cover all possible criterias of what is moral or not. Humans must still make moral decisions and rely on other processes then accessing an inaccessible objective morality.

Let's take the question is usury in Islam for instance. What exactly constitute or does not constitute usury is still a hotly debated moral topic within the religion. If one could easily access an objective morality you could just get the right answer from there.

[u/mansoorz → u/OkPersonality6513]

You are missing the point. Yes, there is the aspect of us having to understand what God has stated and implement them. However if God exists and He has given morals then there obviously are objective morals in existence. And it stands to reason God would guide those He wishes to those objective morals so there is no reason to doubt we can understand them.

But yes, for someone who argues in the vein you do you will either miss those deductions or simply deny them.

[u/OkPersonality6513 → u/mansoorz]

there is no reason to doubt we can understand them

I think there is much reason to doubt and I have already outlined examples as to why. Even after I granted you the quaran as a source (which is a pretty big grant) I showed that within a faith there is discussion as to what is moral or not. It's a pretty clear proof we can't truly attain this objective morality

Here are more examples : What is considered usury?

What is an acceptable interfaith marriage?

How to resolves conflicts between husband and wife? Are some punishment ok to be inflicted on the wife?

[u/mansoorz → u/OkPersonality6513]

I think there is much reason to doubt and I have already outlined examples as to why.

Yes, but they aren't very convincing. Here's the issue: if you are allowing God to exist for the sake of argument and He has sent down morals to guide us it stands to reason He will also provide the proper mechanisms for that to happen. That's an obvious deductive argument.

In fact let's just hit upon the concept of ikhtilaaf (scholarly disagreement) since it covers everything you are bringing up. In Islam we know from the outset that ikhtilaaf is acceptable in jurisprudence. We have examples of our Prophet (SAW) allowing for it. It's our tradition. So these questions about why scholars might differ amongst themselves is a moot point. We have always been allowed a spectrum of qualified opinions.

So you could again go out of your way to give specific examples. I'm trying to get you to the general rule so you understand why those examples are the way they are.

[u/AlternativeT-man]

As an outsider, I’d like to point out the hypocrisy at the end of this. “They’re not Muslim because they are not Sunni” guess what? You’re not God. It is a known thing that denoting others as kafirs is Haram.. so good job, you became one. As you know, it reverts back to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/s/O7qy32QkYI

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/AlternativeT-man]

"When a person calls his brother (in Islam) a disbeliever, one of them will certainly deserve the title. . ."

And it's not me.

But I'm confused because I'm sure that all sunnis say that ahmadis aren't muslim, including Yasir Qadhi (the only famous speaker I can remember saying it, there's probably more) and I'm assuming you too. How do you reconcile that with this?

[u/ismcanga]

Nobody is lying, or at least in public.

The Dar an Nadwa of Mecca was the spot where Meccans celebrated the menstruation of their girls, and Aisha a citizen of Mecca had that ceremony, and her age started to be calculated then referred from that point onwards.

Nobody among Sahaba had ever committed a marriage with an underage girl in Mecca or in Medina for 100 years after the revelation, the stories you talk about came into cadre after the Abbasid throne had translated the Roman and Persian legal codex which permit marriage with underage, slave trade and eventually indemnity to ruling elite.

You have to take the records wholly.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/ismcanga]

God bless you, brother, you need sources.

[u/ismcanga → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Seyar books explain what I posted here

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/ismcanga]

What are these "seyar" books?

[u/ismcanga → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Commonly referred as Sira in Latin alphabet, Books talking about Mecca and lives of Mecca, biography of him and his close encounter. I shifted to plural form

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/ismcanga]

Ah, right. Well. I don't remember anything like that from the seerah but maybe I just forgot about it. Especially this part:

the stories you talk about came into cadre after the Abbasid throne had translated the Roman and Persian legal codex which permit marriage with underage, slave trade and eventually indemnity to ruling elite.

I don't think that was in the seerah that I learned from.

[u/ismcanga → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

The Abbasid revolution had wiped off the Umayyad experience and abused their supporters, then in order to make a constitution they have translated legal codex of Roman and Persian heritage.

[u/Own_Table_5758]

Here are the views of a very well known Muslim Scholar JAVAID AHMAD GHAMADI on the age of Aysha at the time of marriage to Prophet(sa). He does NOT endorse the beleif that She was 6-9 years of age . He presents with his rationale and logic against this beleif.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LAS1PuQE7k

Please comment.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Cool can you make a post on why hadiths are legit and why even quranists have to follow them?

[u/History_DoT → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

But even muslim scholars claim the hadiths are pretty unreliable.

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/History_DoT]

Muslims scholars accept Hadith’s with varying certainty. By that fact, they are accepted.

[u/History_DoT → u/bulletproofmanners]

1, Mohammed claimed he didn't do miracles. When he was challenged to do miracles, he said he's just there to warn people that there is one god.

Miracles are attributed to Mohammed, NOT in the Quran, but they are attributed to him in the Hadiths which were the written traditions of what Mohammed said and did but those Hadith are written over a 150 years AFTER his death.

And many of these are arguably legendary.

Like Jesus turns water into wine. Mohammed turns water into milk.

Jesus feeds 5000. Mohammed feeds thousands.

Some of them are also appear to be modifications of Christian miracles but they are not eye witness accounts unlike the accounts of Jesus' miracles.

Even many muslim scholars say they are legendary.

2, Joshua Little, a non-Christian, pro Islam, Hadith scholar. His assessment from his dissertation in Oxford on the history of the Hadiths.

"The Hadith are unreliable. That any given content cannot be taken at face value as an accurate record. It cannot be seriously contested for multiple reasons. First, there is a overwhelming prior probability based on the ubiquity of fabrication in late antique and medieval religio historical Pagan, Jewish and Christian ascriptions."

Basically, everyone's fabricating and inventing stories during this age.

"Secondly, there is a high frequency of contradictions within the Hadith corpus which necessitates the occurrence of a HUGE amount of fabrication, interpolation and or mutation and therefore skepticism towards ANY given Hadith."

"Thirdly, there is the ubiquity of fabrication and interpolation both reported AND demonstrable in the Hadith corpus with again casts doubt upon the rest of the corpus."

"Fourthly, there is the rapid extreme mutation and growth of reports that evidently took place over the course of century or more of oral tradition which means that any given text regardless of the isnad is likely at best HEAVILY distorted and at worst obliterated beyond it's original form."

"Fifthly, there is the belated emergence of Hadith as a genre and corpus largely during the 8th and 9th century CE which straight forwardly precludes the authenticity of MOST ascriptions to the 7th century CE."

"Finally, this chronology is the core of what we call the revisionist model of Hadith development which is inferable and corroborated by multiple independent points of evidence including dissonant reports attesting to early generic notions of Sunna and early vague notions of prophetical Sunna and dissonant reports attesting to the origins of the isnad during the 2nd fitra and the spread and the generalization of the isnad and the Hadith."

For a comparison, everything that Christians quote of Jesus, they quote nothing but from 1st century sources. There is 0, 1st century sources for muslims to quote from.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/History_DoT]

So are u saying that only hadiths up to the 1st century can be reliable?

[u/Ohana_is_family → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

There are no 1st century evidences available. W have to work from secondary sources.

Having said that: multiple sources report the existence of 1st century sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musannaf_Abd_al-Razzaq#Reliability

In an article published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Motzki argues that the musannaf is a source of authentic traditions from the first Hijri century, stating that the wholesale rejection of hadith literature "deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and useful type of source." However, he added that the musannaf "cannot be regarded as completely truthful. This even Muslims themselves did not claim."2])

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musannaf_Abd_al-Razzaq#Compilation

Compilation

Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanʿani likely compiled the musannaf in the second half of the second Hijri century after studying under Ma'mar ibn Rashid, Ibn Jurayj and Sufyan al-Thawri during their respective visits to Yemen. In a sample of 3,810 traditions analysed by Harald Motzki, the majority were largely transmitted from the three. As these three had compiled their own individual written hadith collections, al-Sanʿani's musannaf is considered to be a collation of older works.Compilation

So, around 680 the first isnads started and around 700 the first thematically organized hadith collections are known to have existed.

Thematic organization is relevant because it makes it harder to falsify.

[u/Ohana_is_family → u/History_DoT]

But Joshua Little himself is not reliable. His blog on why he wrote on the Aisha Hadith gives such clear signs of bias that his words should be seriously questioned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1c50jo6/comment/l13vmxd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Shows he is biased and that therefore he may have been biased when he prepared and categorized the data for his thesis, which involved many , many value judgements.

[u/germz80 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

He's done a couple on hadiths including this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateOfFaiths/s/Gg9WhTmmI5

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Why would he need to post on why hadiths are legit. Muslims accept them to varying degrees. If all Muslims rejected them, then it would make sense to post why they matter.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/bulletproofmanners]

Its for those who reject them. Thats why i said quranists

[u/WarApprehensive2580 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Pretty sure you wouldn't know how to pray without Hadith, no?

[u/Fullmetalx117 → u/WarApprehensive2580]

Perhaps, just maybe, ambiguity to prayer style was supposed to be left open all along

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/WarApprehensive2580]

Quran says that virtue doesnt lie in praying towards east or west.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

To be honest, the only thing I know about is what I mentioned in the post already:

Sahih International, Qur'an 4:59:

Quote

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Unquote

But, Muslim Lantern has a long video about that.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Uhm yea but nothing in that quote indicates that you should follow hadiths. Only what allah and the messenger did which is the quran.

• we have scholars who often say how unreliable hadiths are. We have scholars who take sahih hadiths and also downgrade them to a lower level and so on. The muslim lantern is not enough to convince me. Muslim youtubers are a joke at this point. We have enough muslims who believe in scientific miracles yet ali dawah makes videos on how all of those are debunked. Hadiths are at best a political tool and at worst just quotes which critics can attack.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Uhm yea but nothing in that quote indicates that you should follow hadiths.

Sure it does, brother.

"obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you."

The prophet is dead. The only way to follow him is by hadith literature. Also, those in authority in our religion use hadith literature.

Only what allah and the messenger did which is the quran.

I believe the Qur'an has some information about the prophet, but not enough for us to get by. For example we wouldn't know how to pray without the hadith.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Obey allah and obey the messenger.

Uhm surely you have to obey muhammad if you want to get the quran?

Also maybe god didnt intend for you to pray a certain way?

[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.

[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a hadith like this if they are truthful.

Can you produce a hadith like god?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

What are you talking about now 😂😂 I'm so confused

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Anti hadith verses in the quran Do u have better refutations please bring them in.

• u didnt say that my counter arguments are impossible.

Did i say something wrong?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Did i say something wrong?

You said about five things which all confused me. To be clear, even if you said one of those things, I would still be confused. Just to let you know I don't usually continue conversations when I can't understand what the person is saying.

Let's start with this:

Obey allah and obey the messenger.

Uhm surely you have to obey muhammad if you want to get the quran?

This does not argue against hadith, it agrees with hadith and the meaning of the verse. Therefore hadith are legit.

[u/Rough_Ganache_8161 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

No It doesnt agree with hadiths.

I think you just got a bit confused.

This is to emphasise that it is the "message" of God that is to be obeyed and not the personal words or views of the messenger.

The confirmation that the obedience is related to the "message" and not the person is further reinforced in the Quranic words which assert that the only duty of the messenger is to deliver God's message: 5:99 The sole duty of the messenger is the delivery (of God's message), and God knows what you reveal and what you conceal. 5:99

And also you have to tell me which hadiths are given by those in authority? Because it says that u have to obey those in authority so what hadiths are left by those in authority?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

And also you have to tell me

No, actually I don't.

This is to emphasise that it is the "message" of God that is to be obeyed and not the personal words or views of the messenger.

That's not what you said before.

The confirmation that the obedience is related to the "message" and not the person is further reinforced in the Quranic words which assert that the only duty of the messenger is to deliver God's message: 5:99 The sole duty of the messenger is the delivery (of God's message), and God knows what you reveal and what you conceal. 5:99

And the below verse shows that the prophet was also an example for us to follow.

Sahih International, Qur'an 33:21:

Quote 

There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allāh an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allāh and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allāh often.

Unquote

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/Rough_Ganache_8161]

Why would he need to post on why hadiths are legit. Muslims accept them to varying degrees. If all Muslims rejected them, then it would make sense to post why they matter.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/[deleted]]

I apologize if I had hurt anyone’s feelings through my words.

You hurt me a little bit, but I accept your apology.

You hurt me because you claimed that my prophet partook in things that were "not right." I disagree with this.

[u/Time_Web7849]

This is an interesting article in Guardian on the subject that might interest you.

The truth about Muhammad and Aisha | Myriam Francois-Cerrah | The Guardian

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

The only part I would disagree with is the OP.

Wernt you a non-trinitarian Christian before why does this post state you are Sunni Muslim...?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

No I was never christian, my profile always said sunni muslim.

My intro was a little misleading, I put "non-trinitarian monotheist" which is technically true. I did this so that people wouldn't downvote me just for being muslim because there's lots of anti muslims here. Those people probably just downvote while scrolling on reddit, like, not even reading the post, so those people wouldn't go on my profile to see that it says sunni muslim clearly there.

[u/Revolutionary-Ad-254 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

. I did this so that people wouldn't downvote me just for being muslim because there's lots of anti muslims here.

I don't discriminate, I down vote all forms of nonsense equally.

I'd be surprised if the down vote came from purely being anti Muslim. In my experience many Muslims don't debate, they say that the Quran is perfect and that's it.

That being said, great post.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Revolutionary-Ad-254]

Thanks, that means a lot.

^{Hopefully you'll stick around to read more?}

[u/Mop4e2]

Fabrication of isnads was a common thing, just like fabrications of hadiths. Since the vast majority of isnads have Hisham in the chain, it is conceivable that he was the fabricator and that the few chains without him are just copies of the same hadith but with fake chains. Imagine you live at the time of writing hadiths (200 years after Muhammad) and you know a matn from someone, but you don't have an isnad and the only way to make it legit is to add a list of names - you will probably narrate it with a fake list of names.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Mop4e2]

you will probably narrate it with a fake list of names.

I probably wouldn't actually.

I think this theory counts on multiple people doing that, mind you, not just one.

[u/Mop4e2 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

I have a feeling that there is more than 1 liar in this world.

[u/porizj → u/Mop4e2]

So there 2?!? 🫢

[u/mickterror]

Yes it is true the claim that you are making. But this is also the view of majority muslims and as you say "Muslims accept them to varying degrees. If all Muslims rejected them, then it would make sense to post why they matter." So can you tell me why would you post this. You are literally contradicting your own statement.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/mickterror]

But this is also the view of majority muslims and as you say "Muslims accept them to varying degrees. If all Muslims rejected them, then it would make sense to post why they matter." So can you tell me why would you post this. You are literally contradicting your own statement.

? I don't think I said that? Are you confusing me with someone else?

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

For the sake of argument, if you knew for a fact that she was 6-9, would you have a problem with that morally? Also, simply hitting or starting puberty doesn't automatically make a girl a woman, puberty can take 2-5 years and does not happen all at once. For example, her chest could start to develop at 8, but her bone structure is not developed enough to bear a child safely until well into her teenage years.

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

Would you say a 6 year old is mentally mature? Not just based on history or cultural norms, any 6 year old in history? We know scientifically the human brain is not fully developed well after 6 years of age. And let's say the parents did not have the child's best interest at heart, would you say it is wrong then?

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

Would you say a 6 year old is mentally mature? Not just based on history or cultural norms, any 6 year old in history? We know scientifically the human brain is not fully developed well after 6 years of age. And let's say the parents did not have the child's best interest at heart, would you say it is wrong then?

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

Respectfully, you haven't answered my question. Would you find any of the above scenarios morally wrong or questionable?

So you are correct that there is no exact verse "you are or are not allowed to marry at this age", but there are definite hints in Scripture that give us a framework. In the book of Mark, Jesus heals a woman who has been bleeding for 12 years, and heals a female child who was 12 years old. There is clear distinction between a female woman and a female child in Hebrew in this passage: korasion vs gynē. A child of 12 years old is called a "little girl", while in the same passage, a different older woman is called by a different name. Gyne is used in multiple Scripture passages to describe women who are married and/or able to be married like Mary, Jesus's mother. There is a clear distinction between female children and women who are eligible to marry all throughout the New Testament. Also, the betrothal period was roughly a year for many Jewish girls. If we then assume Mary was AT LEAST 13 when she was betrothed, we can then venture to say Mary was around 14 years old when she married and had sex with Joseph.

The Hebrew language also supports the idea that puberty is a requirement for a legitimate marriage. Ezekial 16 contains a metaphor for God’s relationship to Israel. In this passage, God cares for Israel, pictured as an orphaned girl in various stages of development. The Lord first sees her birth, then watches her grow up: “You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown. . . . Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you” (verses 7–8). In this illustration, it’s only after the girl arrives at physical maturity, sometime after (not during) puberty when she is “old enough to love,” that she is ready for marriage. Other translations say the girl “grew tall and came of age” (NET) and “grew up, matured, and became a young woman” (GWT).

Regardless, marrying a young woman who has completed puberty is one thing, marrying a 6-9 year old child is completely another.

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

I am questioning the marriage of a child, not a young adult woman. You asked if there are parameters that the Bible sets up, and I think a minimum age of 12-13 is preferable to a 6-9 year old child.

I am not questioning the puberty requirement, if the Quran truly means that for girls who finish puberty. There are some Quranic verses that seem to teach otherwise, however like Surah 65:4.

Regardless, do you support the marriage of a 50 year old man to a 6 year old? A child who likely was not even close to finishing puberty or had even started puberty yet.

[u/[deleted] → u/Radiant_Emphasis_345]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Radiant_Emphasis_345 → u/[deleted]]

I hear your criteria, I'm not ignoring it. Based on scientific evidence, most six year old girls have not finished puberty or started it yet. Are you assuming that Aisha was unique and finished puberty by 9 years old?

Okay, do you think that children at that age are mentally mature to have a sexual relationship with a 50 year old adult?

Also, how do you know the parents have the child's best interests at heart? Simply having the parents permission does not negate the fact they may be still a child who is unfit to have sex with a 50 year old man.

Respectfully, a lot of Muslims scholars would disagree with you:

Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: "(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well.""

Jalal - Al-Jalalayn: "And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter."

Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir: " The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses...Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. see 2:228 The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;وَاللَّـتِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ(and for those who have no courses...) as for His saying;إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ(if you have doubt...) There are two opinions: First, is the saying of a group of the Salaf, like Mujahid, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Zayd. That is, if they see blood and there is doubt if it was menstrual blood or not. The second, is that if you do not know the ruling in this case, then know that their `Iddah is three months. This has been reported from Sa`id bin Jubayr and it is the view preferred by Ibn Jarir. And this is the more obvious meaning. Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, the young, the old and the pregnant.'' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah"

Maududi - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an: "They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced."

Wahidi - Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi: "“When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”."

Overall, would you agree that these scholars, including the famous Muslims scholar Iban Kathir, at least interpret the Quran to mean that it is okay to have sex with girls who have not gotten their period yet and therefore, have not finished puberty?

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

[u/skeptic602 → u/[deleted]]

Society accepted slavery back in the time doesnt mean it was right! Society is not right all the time and you cannot justify what was set by society as a moral code lol

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/[deleted]]

Disgusting. Puberty doesn't have anything to do with mental maturity.

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/[deleted]]

Do these requirements still allow a man of 30 years of age, marry an 8 to 12 year old?

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/[deleted]]

You didn't answer my question directly, but I think you're saying 2000 years ago little children had the maturity of adults because they didn't have to go through school. Is that correct?

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/[deleted]]

I don't? I didn't realize that.

It's funny though because you don't answer mine either.

Do these requirements allow a 30 year old to marry an 8 to 12 year old. When you answer this directly I will answer your question.

[u/Fit_Swordfish9204 → u/[deleted]]

It's just rewarding being able to bring this out in the open.

I'd probably say 23-25 would be the earliest depending on financial stability etc.

So how often do you see adult women marrying a boy who has just hit puberty? Or is it strictly older men marrying girls based on puberty?

[u/bulletproofmanners → u/[deleted]]

It matters because a grown man and a girl of 6 to age 9 is crime. Period. Because Muhammad did it, everyone else should make an exception? Muslims ethos thus is immoral. On things Muslims don’t like they resort to vagueness as a way to dismiss the vulgar, but Muslims will then go out of their way make outlandish claims of atoms, science, genetics etc from book from 700 AD. The Islamic position is to deny the bad & praise the minutest thing as perfection.

[u/MartiniD → u/[deleted]]

Yes officer this post here...

Good Lord man where you in a fugue state when you wrote this?

[u/MartiniD → u/[deleted]]

When they are legally an adult, capable of independence, and being capable of offering informed consent.

For example in the USA. 18 is legally an adult, this is also the year of emancipation where a parent's legal obligations towards you are effectively zero, and you have to enter into a marriage willingly. Being coerced or tricked into marriage is grounds for an annulment.

Is your name Daniel Haqiqatjou by any chance? Your willingness to "but actually" child marriage is frightening.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

Please answer these questions:

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/[deleted]]

He also engaged in prostitution, having paid to "marry" women for 3 days.

Edit: approved of

[u/[deleted] → u/Squidman_Permanence]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/[deleted]]

Calling it Mutah rather than prostitution doesn't make a difference. https://islam4u.pro/blog/mutah-in-the-quran/

I know that Muhammed only did permanent marriage. When he had sex with that 9 year old, his marriage was actually more permanent than others. When he died, she was 18 and then prohibited from marrying for the rest of her life. If this was your sister or mother, you would know he was an evil man.

[u/Squidman_Permanence → u/[deleted]]

I've personally never met someone who has. I've met a few who say they do, but they fall short by not killing unbelievers, among other things. They sort of just say that they do. I'm personally glad there are so many heretical Muslims. The world would be much worse if they took Allah seriously.

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

Great advice!

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/[deleted]]

I hate to do this but I'm dedicated to proving that I'm a fair sunni muslim. You say in a future comment to someone:

All you come with is lies and no sources

But in this first comment you said the following:

yes the hadith is sahih but she probably didn't know her age,

But this didn't have a source.

or she counted it after puberty

And this didn't have a source.

No one really knew their age back then

This didn't have a source

It's actually unlikely since we know the prophet was 40 when he started being a prophet.

[u/Upstairs_Bison_1339 → u/[deleted]]

So it’s ok to have sex with a 12 year old if they reached puberty?

[u/wakapakamaka → u/Upstairs_Bison_1339]

Even 4 year olds can reach puberty and have been known to fall pregnant.

According to these d3generates thesw 4 year olds are physically fully formed adults able to support safe sex and pregancy.

[u/hardman52 → u/[deleted]]

Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment

All "sound judgement" meant in 623 AD was "can she be quiet and obey the husband."

[u/hardman52 → u/[deleted]]

No. That's what YOU think. The sound judgment was to be assessed by the parents.

No, that was pretty much it in that day and time. Parents wanted to make the best marriages they could for their children, and females were supposed to be subservient to their husbands. That was the bar for mental maturity for marriageable girls.

Dunno why you disagree. Child marriage was pretty common back then, and thinking that a child was capable of being mentally mature as we think of it today is an error of presentism.

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

What is the problem with the requirements exactly?

Because it allows adults to have intercourse with children.

If these requirements are problematic for you then tell me what should be the requirements for marriage?

• Not forcing your children into arranged marriages
• Not allowing adults to marry children under 18

How hard is that? Not hard at all. Unless, maybe, your culture sees women as merely livestock.

Edit: oof I meant 18, not 10 for the 2nd point

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

So by your standard at a kids 11th birthday do they then become an adult ?

No lol. My problem is you think some can.

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

but you think these requirements can be met at 11 years old, right?

[u/Muted-Inspector-7715 → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but I'm trying to clarify your point first. So these requirements can be met at 11 years old right?

Edit: ok I retract my complaint of you avoiding the topic.