I don't want to link the video to further bolster Robinson's income, but it's fairly easy to find on Youtube if you want to see it.
Basically during a discussion about the validity of Sahih al-Bukhari Tawhidi brings up A'ishah (ra) age as an example of why he's a terrible source. When Robinson questions him further on his own beliefs on how old she was Tawhidi says ("for the very 1st time ever on camera") that she was in fact 21 and Muslims scholars got together and agreed on the "lie" that she was 6-9 because they wanted to make her a virgin. Tawhidi goes on to say that being a virgin is the most important thing for being a Prophets wife and examples that lowering her age was the only way to ensure this "lie" was propagated. During this entire explanation Robinson is overcome with so much joy, he literally can't contain himself.
I'm aware of some Shi'a's dislike for A'ishah (ra) and I'm aware of many insults directed towards in terms of her "purity". But I've never heard the argument that this an intentional implementation by scholars to embed this logic within Islam.
Because it literally makes no sense. Muslims or not, scholar or PhD in Google searching. It takes a few minutes to totally obliterate this argument beyond any debate.
1) He says that the low age was essential to create the virgin narrative. If this is the case why is it unanimously agreed across all interpretations of Islam that Khadijah (ra) was "old" when she married the Prophet, older than him in fact. Sources put her at 40. And she was his 1st wife. If scholars are so protective of the virgin state of the Prophets wife and link age to it then why would they agree that the Prophet literally married a 40 year old virgin?
Bar A'ishah (ra) all of the other Prophets wives were of the age western society would today consider an "adult", but I've just highlighted Khadijah (ra) as she was the oldest, and this point is massively emphasized in Islam.
2) The Prophet had no problem marrying non-virgins! Sawdah (ra), Hafsah (ra), Zaynab (ra), Hind (ra), Zaynab (ra) and Maymunah (ra) were all previously married to other men before marrying the Prophet! And of the two former slaves that the Prophet married, no claim is made about their "purity" or virginity.
I've heard a lot of debates against Islam, and whilst I wouldn't call them "credible" they certainly have infinitely more substance than this. Most even come down to a theological subjective belief. But this, this just has no logical basis at all.
This isn't an "let's all laugh at this rubbish HAHAHA". I'm genuinely struggling to understand the rationale for this argument. Can someone who's potentially heard this argued before example it to me? I always enjoy having arguments explained to me, even if i disagree with them because it better improves my own understanding due to my process of trying to counter-argument.
For someone like Tawhidi who seemingly always fighting a battle for credibility, why would he so totally expose himself to such an abysmal fallacy?
[link] [comments]
from Islam http://ift.tt/2FbFHgu
No comments:
Post a Comment