Rahman is being honest.
Hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
But now there have been riots all over India, Nupur Sharma is in hiding, and innocent people have been killed. All for nothing, or rather, to establish the idea that non-Muslims must not say anything about Islam in a remotely critical way, even if it’s accurate.
“‘Nupur Sharma was not wrong, If Islamic clerics think she was wrong, they should first explain how’: Scholar Atiqur Rahman,” OpIndia, July 8, 2022 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
In a debate show hosted by Pradeep Bhandari in India News, Islamic scholar Atiqur Rahman stated that Nupur Sharma was not wrong in what she said about the life of Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic scholar lamented the atmosphere of hate and threats created via social media and stated that Islam has the scope to discuss and forgive.
During the news debate, VHP leader Vinod Bansal raised the issue of how many Islamists are giving open death threats and proclaiming that they will kill anyone who raises questions on Islam. Pradeep Bhandari had noted that india is a liberal democracy and not an orthodox theocratic state where criticism of religion means strict punishment.
VHP’s Vinod Bansal stated, “I support Atiqur Rahman’s statement that there should be a discussion on the life of Prophet Muhammad, because there are many things to be learned from his life. This is a country where we discuss about the lives of Bhagwan Ram and Krishna, to learn things and get inspired from their teachings. So why should we not learn from Prophet Muhammad too?”
Bansal further asked Atiqur Rahman, “As far as Nupur Sharma is concerned, she had quoted from Islamic texts, the same details have been said by many Islamic scholars and mentioned in Islamic texts. I want to ask, what was wrong in her statement? Did she quote wrong? Were her style and mannerism wrong? Or is it the Islamic texts that have mentioned wrong details? Why are Islamists calling for her beheading?”
To this, scholar Atiqur Rahman replied, “No, Nupur Sharma was not wrong. She was not wrong. If any Islamic scholar or Muslim thinks she was wrong, Islam has such wide scope that she can be forgiven and given a chance that some senior Islamic cleric explains to her how she was wrong.”…
SKA says
An Islamic scholar admitting the Muslim mob in India is in the wrong! How refreshing but lamentably only the exception to the rule.
mortimer says
SKA, he was lying about what Sharia law actually says in order to calm the situation down. Sharia actually DOES NOT FORGIVE someone who ‘mentions something impermissible’ about Mohammed.
Scholar Atiqur Rahman knew he was lying and other Islamic scholars know why he lied. Lying to bring peace between peoples is permissible in Islam.
Islam is an honor/shame culture, so whatever shames Islam must be punished by the death penalty. The shedding of the blood of the kafir restores ‘honor’ to Islam and makes Islam ‘greater’ than and supreme over the kafir.
SKA says
A religion full of lies and murder . . . like a certain fallen angel
Mount Zion says
I think all this fuss about her statement is that she said it in a critical way and not because it isn’t true .
If there had been a debate about a prominet muslim marrying a 6 year old and Nupur Sharma had stated to leave the man alone because in their culture it’s admussible since their holy book says so, than , even if a Kaffir , she would have been praised by the entire Umma for defending Islam.
somehistory says
He will likely be next on the list for murder by the moslum hordes who just can’t wait to sever necks and stab in the back.
tim gallagher says
That’s what I thought immediately, somehistory. This Muslim had better watch his back. If only it were true what he says, that “islam has the scope to discuss and forgive”. As if. When does islam ever show that? He must live on some other planet to say that. It would be great if it was true. But isslam and Muslims would need to resemble other, more civilised religions for that to be true.
somehistory says
Tim, I have read…as most here have done….so many mozlums say that they want an apology, but they never say they forgive whatever the apology is supposed to cover. They hold on to the anger until they get a chance to attack. the one recently said aloud that there could be no forgiveness for the Indian lady.
the average person with a well-rounded personality, will overlook much that is said and done that they don’t like, and if they do say something which elicits an apology, they’ll say okay and that’s the end of it. but, mozlums don’t have well-rounded personalities and they are taught to not forgive nor forget. The 9/11 was said to be for something that happened centuries ago.
they are not likely to forgive…even one of their own…for saying the Indian lady was correct.
Keith O says
Tim & SH, I reckon both of you are pretty much spot on.
somehistory says
thank you Keith
gravenimage says
+1
tim gallagher says
Yeah, I’m sure you are right, somehistory. This Muslim will probably have to watch his step from now on. He is surely way off target when he says that islam is able to discuss and forgive. Especially the forgiveness aspect. They never seem to show that capacity at all. Thanks, Keith O, for the comment. That is a virtue that islam doesn’t teach at all.
somehistory says
You are right again, Tim. We can’t allow ourselves to be fooled by liars who may have a smooth tongue.
mortimer says
No, Muslims take their orders from the mullahs who lead them from behind the scene. The brains of Islamic vigilantism are the MULLAHS.
These people do not act spontaneously on their own. The mullahs form and organize a HISBAH group to impose Sharia through intimidation, assault and vandalism.
Years ago, there was no complaint for months about the Danish Mohammed cartoons until a mullah stirred up concern about it at a Muslim religious conference in Egypt. Then, the mullahs organized their people to rage and burn things down and kill.
Muslim people did not spontaneously do that without the mullahs leading them. They aren’t a bunch of wild animals. It only looks like it, so that the mullahs may conceal their organization.
tim gallagher says
Yes, I suppose that the mullahs do stir the Muslim mobs up, mortimer, although those mobs in pakistan that are always baying for blood don’t seem to be moderate types of people until the mullahs get to them and fire them up. Either way, being in a murderous rage seems to be one of the main activities for the average citizen in pakistan and many other Muslim countries. Peacefulness and islam seem to be complete opposites much of the time. If you aim to imitate a murderous creature like Muhammad then you are probably going to be a person who thinks that being violent is an acceptable way to live your life.
Michael Copeland says
“Violence is the heart of Islam”
Ayatollah Yazdi
tim gallagher says
That quote says it all, Michael. It is a shame that the people who keep telling us all how peaceful Islam is do not seem to have come across that succinct summary of islam’s nature. Ah, yes, how wonderful and noble islam is with murderous violence at its heart.
somehistory says
Jesus said, ““Out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. (Matthew 15:19) .”
and, “out of the heart, the mouth speaks.”
gravenimage says
India: Islamic scholars unable to show how ‘blasphemer’ was wrong
…………………………………
This is true–everything Sharma said was from Islamic texts. Pious Muslims just don’t want anyone to speak critically of any aspect of Islam.
I hope Atiqur Rahman doesn’t get death threats now…
mortimer says
Islamic scholar Atiqur Rahman may not get death threats, since he was using TAQIYYA to cover up what Islam teaches. Atiqur Rahman was lying and knew he was lying … but we naive non-Muslims do not know Sharia law.
To wit, when Atiqur Rahman claimed that a blasphemer may be ‘FORGIVEN’ that is literally untrue and he knew it. A verbal attack upon Islam or the shaming of Mohammed may NEVER be forgiven because ONLY Mohammed has the right (in Sharia) to forgive a verbal attack on Islam.
The person who made the ‘haram’ statement must die. Islam defends its ‘honor’ through the death sentence.
QUOTE FROM ISLAM’S SECOND-MOST IMPORTANT AUTHORITY:
– Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says There is no right for anyone to PARDON, or FORGIVE, or leave the charge of death penalty because of benefit and interest, or change/replace the penalty from capital punishment to something lesser (e.g. Ta’zir being lashed or sentenced to prison) because this is someone who has harmed Muhammad (saw) and the entire Muslim Ummah [written in the chapter called Can we drop the charge against someone who insults Muhammad (saw)]. The offence is so great that in some cases an apostate can repent and return to the fold of Islam whereas anyone who insults any of the Messengers may repent but will never affect the ruling on him. As Imam Malik [d.179 AH] (rh) said He could become the most pious person in the entire world but that will not detract the penalty of being executed.
mortimer says
GI has correctly identified the problem in her comment: ” –everything Sharma said was from Islamic texts. Pious Muslims just don’t want anyone to speak critically of any aspect of Islam.”
It actually goes beyond being ‘critical’, because Islam is an HONOR/SHAME CULTURE. Thus, whatever produces SHAME in Muslims is called ‘SLANDER’ even if the claim is 100% true and accurate.
For instance, if I state that ‘ABDUL SNORES WHENEVER HE SLEEPS’ … the statement may be perfectly true and correct, but it brings SHAME to Abdul, so I may not say it. As a kafir, a Muslim may get me killed for revealing a secret ABDUL doesn’t want others to learn.
More precisely, if a KAFIR speaks about Mohammed’s pedophilia and necrophilia, these disgusting matters are described in the hadiths, and so, they are PERFECTLY ISLAMIC and TRUE according to Islam’s primary source texts. But Muslims will object because stating that is ‘HARAM’ (impermissible).
Clearly, Muslims DO NOT WISH KAFIRS TO KNOW ABOUT MOHAMMED’S FLAWS, and so, they must conceal them through enforced censorship of what is in the hadiths and Sira and in Sharia law.
FROM THE RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER (Sharia law manual):
“The (DHIMMI) agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
-5- mentions something IMPERMISSIBLE about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.” – Reliance of the Traveller’ Chapter ‘O’ 11.10.05.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Whatever brings shame upon Islam is HARAM (IMPERMISSIBLE) and should result in the execution of the speaker, since ‘forgviveness’ of a verbal attack on Islam may only be given by Mohammed who is dead.
So there is no way Muslims may avoid the death sentence for ‘MENTIONING SOMETHING HARAM’ (impermissible).
Islam, thus, silences and makes liars of everyone.
Walter Sieruk says
Among Muslims all this talk ,and terrible anger rage about “blasphemy against Islam” which even results deadly violence as well as the “blasphemy laws ” in the different Muslim countries against those who might criticize Islam may ,justly be viewed as the fact the Islam can’t stand up to any criticism at all because Islam is built on a foundation of sand.
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
Islam is the gasoline. The Mullah is the lit match. The adherents and surrounding populace is the tinder.