Question Number 6 for Solkhar!

Not that we have much hope for Solkhar to answer the question:  he is yet to answer the first five. But if Solkhar is truly a moderate, modern, civilized Muslim he would certainly agree with Geert Wilders: Wilders  just called the Islamic prophet Muhammad a pig for marrying Aisha when she was six and consumated the marriage when she was nine.

Question for Solkhar: is the 80-year-old Muslim within his rights or is he a pig like Muhammad for ‘marrying’ a 10-year-old girl?

Wilders: 80-year-old Muslim who married 10-year-old “is behaving like a pig, just like the barbarous Prophet Mohammed, who married the six year old girl Aisha”

Child bride

Now this will be interesting. Right now Wilders is playing offense: “The PVV leader wants Verhagen to summon the Saudi Arabian ambassador to express his repugnance.” But expect the cascade of protests and condemnations — from both Muslims and dhimmis — to begin soon. Still, however, this puts those who will condemn Wilders in a peculiar position. If they take issue with his characterization of Muhammad, they will either be excusing the Muslim prophet’s marriage to a six-year-old and declining to condemn those Muslims who imitate their prophet by taking child brides,or, if they say that Muhammad didn’t actually marry a child, they’re in the position of denying evidence that is in the sources Muslims consider most reliable. Yet as this incident with the 80-year-old and his 10-year-old bride demonstrates (“my marriage is not against Shariah,” said the codger), many Muslims take that evidence quite seriously.

“Wilders Compares Prophet Mohammed to Pig,” from NIS News, August 28 (thanks to JW):

THE HAGUE, 28/08/09 – Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders has seized on a news report from Saudi Arabia for peppery written questions to the cabinet. In these, he compares the Islamic prophet Mohammed to a pig.

Wilders has requested clarification from Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen on a marriage in Saudi Arabia between an 80 year old man and a 10 year old child. The child had run away from her elderly husband, but was brought back to him by her father, the English-language website Arab News reports based on a Saudi newspaper.

Wilders asks the minister if he shares the view that “this man is behaving like a pig, just like the barbarous Prophet Mohammed, who married the six year old girl Aisha.” The PVV leader wants Verhagen to summon the Saudi Arabian ambassador to express his repugnance.

20 thoughts on “Question Number 6 for Solkhar!”

  1. Geert insulted pigs and upset their sensibilities … such porcophobia!

    I’m having a pork cutlet later, but wouldn’t want a slice of Mo-ham.

  2. I had a pork burrito this evening (se llama carnitas), in honor of Mr. Wilders, and in disrespect to the scumbag 80 year old moslem and his “marraige”/”arranged child rape” to that poor 10 year old.

    Looks like Mr. Wilders is really setting the tone for the debate –

    1. If muslims agree with this child marraige, then they admit to paedophilia.
    2. If they don’t agree with the arrainged child marraige, then they are contradicting their own koran, ahadiths, siras, and their beloved “self described prophet, which means they are apostates and can be beheaded at will by more strident moslems!

    Excellent trap Sun Tzu…I mean Mr. Geert Wilders.

    By the way, if Islam is the religion of peace, why is there always a sword on their main islamic flag, the flag of Suadi Arabia? Lets keep the logic train a rollin’. In the words of the immortal Dethklok:

    ‘It’s a murder-train a comin’ – Murdertrain – Dethklok, the Deth album

  3. There are so many questions the TROLL Solkhar runs away from Sheik. I for example asked him.
    How can a God which created PREDESTINES and SEALS peoples minds so they cant believe in him then punishes them in eternal hellfire BECAUSE they dont believe in him be called Merciful when he is an illogical SADIST creating people he KNOWS he is going to punish. Solkhar’s only comment was to quibble about how long they would be punished. LOL

    I then asked him how Mohammedans could HYPOCRITICALLY punish homosexuals in this life then have their ILLOGICAL God allah provide them with ‘Pearly Boys’ to screw in the ‘great knocking shop in the sky’ which is Mohammedan paradise. But answer came there none.
    Seems like his BF has not explained Mohammedan HYPOCRISY and lack of logical ability to him yet.

  4. I had the pork cutlet, confident that it hadn’t been sacrificed to “allah”.
    Tasty, too!

  5. I had actually answered many of your questions and proven them to be BS, such as your absoultely and stuningly stupid reference to the Qur’an being not made into a book form until 200 years after the death of Mohammed, which would mean that it was not until the mid to late 9th century – get real!

    What is interesting is how when I show you wrong, my posting has “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” on it which implies that it has been blocked for others to see.

    Also, you claimed twice now that the Five Schools of Islam support jihad and that it is integral of the core values and principles of Islam and I asked the very simple and understandable request that you back that statement up, which you have not done at all. Because if fact you lied. You are unable to get any sactioned document or reference that any of the very important, if not critical, Five Schools of Islamic Thought and Jurispudance saying that they support, saction or announce a jihad – since the 11th century. Oh, that is right, you quote one historical figure whom was not the leader or collective representative of those Schools.

  6. Now I was not going to answer any more of yoru “so-called” questions because you first accussed me of not answering all 10 before you actually thought them up. Also that I think it is rather low on your part that you had in fact no 10 questions and you are still trying to make them up (I see desparate flicking between Spencer’s pages to find them).

    But I will answer this one because it shows some other aspects that are always denied by agenda-based blogists like this one….. that there is no debate in Islam and the presumption that only the radicals and extremists are the only correct Muslims.

    Liberals, moderates and reformist which are the majority of the academics check things out for looking into what facts say. Thus the subject of Aisha being 6 when betrothed and 9 when consumated has been debated and studied by scholars since the 12th century. The only reference to that age was the haddith of Bukhari and since ultra-conservatives do not like and condemn questioning any of the main haddiths – radicals simply believed it. BUT since Ibn-Sina raised it during times of enlightenment, the subject of “doing it proberly” and in fact debating it has never been snuffed out.

    So here are what happens when you actually do some study and logic into the project. Aisha could not have been that young. She was probably between 12 to 14 when bethrothed and 15 to 16 years old when consumated which historically makes sense to that era and even to this day in many parts of the world – Muslim AND non-Muslim.

    Below is one or many such studies. Note that this study group considered that the author of the study was the first scholar to question, they were unaware that the questions started in the 12th century.
    Determination of the true age of Aisha

    It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

    “A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

    To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

    Later research
    Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

    1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

    “In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

    Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

    2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

    “She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

    (Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

    This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

    3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

    “Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

    Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

    “Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

    This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

    Two further evidences cited by Maulana Muhammad Ali
    In the footnotes of his Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari, entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, Maulana Muhammad Ali had pointed out reports of two events which show that Aisha could not have been born later than the year of the Call. These are as follows.

    1. The above mentioned statement by Aisha in Bukhari, about her earliest memory of her parents being that they were followers of Islam, begins with the following words in its version in Bukhari’s Kitab-ul-Kafalat. We quote this from the English translation of Bukhari by M. Muhsin Khan:

    “Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant.” [9]

    Commenting on this report, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:

    “This report sheds some light on the question of the age of Aisha. … The mention of the persecution of Muslims along with the emigration to Ethiopia clearly shows that this refers to the fifth or the sixth year of the Call. … At that time Aisha was of an age to discern things, and so her birth could not have been later than the first year of the Call.” [10]

    Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

    2. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari as follows:

    “On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm 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.” [11]

    Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in a footnote under this report:

    “It should also be noted that Aisha joined the Holy Prophet’s household only one year before the battle of Uhud. According to the common view she would be only ten years of age at this time, which is certainly not a suitable age for the work she did on this occasion. This also shows that she was not so young at this time.” [12]

    If, as shown in the previous section above, Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage, then she would be twenty years old at the time of the battle of Uhud. It may be added that on the earlier occasion of the battle of Badr when some Muslim youths tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army to the field of battle, the Holy Prophet Muhammad sent them back on account of their young age (allowing only one such youngster, Umair ibn Abi Waqqas, to accompany his older brother the famous Companion Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas). It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that if Aisha was ten years old the Holy Prophet would have allowed her to accompany the army to the field of battle.

    We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having taken place five years previously.


  7. When God gathers the Ezekiel 38 / 39 nations into battle against Israel, the “Five Schools of Islamic Thought and Jurispudance” will get their chance to “support, saction or announce a jihad”. Might be the last time they declare war against God if they do however, Solkhar.

    This battle will basically be asymmetrical – the invaders won’t stand
    a chance.

  8. * Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal

    Still portrays Mo as a lecherous old rockspider, Solkhar.

  9. Below is another item that points out about Judaic texts that are relevant to the subject and I think speaks for itself….


    As it is Christian evangelists and other believers in the Bible who have been bitterly reviling the Holy Prophet Muhammad on account of his marriage with Aisha, we put to them the practices of the great patriarchs and prophets that are recorded in the Bible itself in this connection. The main accusations regarding the marriage of Aisha are that she was too young in age while the Holy Prophet was a much older man, being fifty years of age, and that consent to marriage was either not obtained from her or she was not capable of giving it.

    In the book of Genesis in the Bible it is recorded about Abraham:

    “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, ‘The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. … So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis, chapter 16, verses 1–4, and 15–16, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)

    Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife.

    The first book of Kings in the Bible begins as follows:

    “When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.” (1 Kings, chapter 1, verses 1–4, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)

    So there seems nothing wrong, according to the Bible, in procuring a young virgin, again apparently without her consent, whose duties include lying with the elderly king in bed. The intention was certainly for sexual enjoyment, otherwise there was no necessity of looking for a young, beautiful virgin. A much older woman, perhaps a widow, could have performed all these duties, including lying with the king to keep him warm.


  10. Realist – I am neither obliged or interested in answering your pathetic rantings. As you can see I do not run away at all, which has already proved how valueless your existance is.

  11. According to our Christian crusading evangalical zealot, he considers also that Abraham and David were “lecherous old rockspiders”.

    The reality is we are talking about 7th century Saudi Arabia whom were mostly nomadic and survival was a collective tribal necessity. A girl whos lifespan was normally no more than 50, who’s chance for motherhood was between around 14 or 15 to 25yrs, whom before Mohammed were of no value and sold along with the goats and camels – the simple fact for then was that it was important that every girl found a husband, the more rich or important the husband the better chance for survival and having children it was.

    I have no problem in saying that though Islam spread, so did Arab tribal values and that is wrong and a great problem. Much in Arabia did not change for hundreds of years so those practices of that time became cemented via Arab-Islam and certainly radicals and extremists do not want that situation to change and that is often what you see now.

  12. * According to our Christian crusading evangalical zealot

    Me, Solkhar?

    * crusading

    Aren’t you the one railing against people misusing “jihad” when the
    five schools … haven’t declared a jihad for hundreds of years?

    I am not on a “crusade”, Solkhar – I have no mandate to do so, and
    as far as I know there is no Biblical authority for Christians to declare
    a crusade against (eg) muslims to retake the Holy Land. However,
    the term, like jihad, has meaning regardless of what I, you, or the
    five schools have to say about it.

    * evangalical (sic)

    Probably guilty, especially in a satanic country like Morocco, where
    snitches are ready to grass on me.

    * zealot

    Check its meaning(s), Solkhar – I am not Jewish, and the other meanings might apply equally to you, should some agenda-driven
    person choose to describe you as such.

  13. I see Solkhar so you response to me saying you dont answer my questions and just RUN AWAY is to not answer my questions and to RUN AWAY. Amazing your BF must be so proud of you what a shining example of Mohammedan stupidity you are.

  14. Good to see that our prosthelitizer will not answer regarding Abraham and King David, thus confirming his own hypocrisy – he can play the game against Mohammed but now the evidence of it being the same as the other Prophets Abraham and David – he has to now keep his own mouth closed.

  15. So nice of you Solkhar to admit that Mohammad was merely a man of his time a 7th Century nomadic Arab. Not a man for all time or an example to be followed at all. Or do you want it both ways why are Mohammedans such unashamed blatant HYPOCRITES. On minute the Krap Kran is the unalterable word of God true for all time then its just a 7th Century History book. One minute its LITERAL then next its allegorical but ask a Mohammedan to tell you which verse is which and they dont have a clue it just depends who they are arguing with at the time and what Islam has been caught out with. Then of course there are all the contradictions covered of course by abrogation but ask yourself what supreme being gets it wrong in the first place. Lets face it to swallow Islams BS you have to be illogical,naive and gullible to say the very least.

  16. Solkhar, Abraham and King David are not held up as models of perfection – they sinned, and rebelled against God. The false prophet
    Mohammed, however, is presented as the “perfect man”. King David
    acknowledged his sin against God; Moses did not get to live in the promised land (Israel) due to sin & disbelief & so on.

    Notice that the Book of Kings that you cited says: “Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.”

    Searched throughout Israel, Solkhar – not the “zionist entity” or
    some such non-state that muslims use to justify their jihad against the apple of God’s eye.

    Muslims hold Mo up as the “perfect man”, and you dismiss the Bible as tampered with, & needing to be “interpreted” via the koran.

    How does the koran “interpret” the Book of Kings, Solkhar? Is Israel
    the Holy Land, covenanted to Abraham’s descendants, e.g. King David, or is it not?

    The Bible is the Word of God – the koran is a counterfeit, used by the
    likes of you in your jihad against the Way, the Life and the Truth.

    Here is one for you – does the cap fit?

    Do you know any dobber who might do something like this, that
    Jesus Christ, the Son of God, warned about in Mark 13:9:

    “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.”

    Jesus Christ went on to say “And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.” (which would logically include Morocco, regardless of
    its resident snitches)

    “Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.”

    “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.”

    “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”

    Lose your hatred of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Solkhar, and be free.

    Your false god and his false prophet cannot help you.

  17. Is this how you feel about your false prophet, Solkhar?ān_al-Kāmil

    [In Islamic theology, al-Insān al-Kāmil (الإنسان الكامل, also rendered as Insan-i Kamil انسانِ كامل – in Persian and Turkish), is a term used as an honorific title to describe Muhammad. Muhammad is known as uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil, par excellence. [1] It is an Arabic phrase loosely translated, meaning, the ‘perfect human’.]

    That is blasphemy, Solkhar, almost on a par with the coming Antichrist, who will go a step further and claim to be god & demand
    to be worshipped as god.

    It is Jesus Christ who is without sin, not Mohammed, and who was crucified for our sins and resurrected to eternal life, and there is nothing that the false prophet Mohammed, you, “allah” or 1.x billion muslims can do about it. Your religion is based on lies and blasphemies, Solkhar, and it is doomed.

  18. Well, after this pathetic display of tu quoque, taqiyya, deflection and blaming da Jooozzz I think informed readers can make up their own minds about the twisted world of solkhar. The hadith of Bukhari are generally considered “sound & authentic”, what solkhar posts is just apologist nonsense, disproven by the multitudes of child marriages in the Islamic world. The 80-year old Arab who marries a 10-year old understands his Islam correctly: because Muhamad did it, its cool. The practice is here to stay.

    Failed again, solkhar.

    I shall post the question again for you:

    is the 80-year-old Muslim within his rights or is he a pig like Muhammad for ‘marrying’ a 10-year-old girl?

  19. Yet again the blog-owner preaches the Islam of radicals and extremists and additionaly avoided his own errors and blatant agenda based abuse.

    SNIP for nonsensical rubbish! Shape up or ship out, soolkar!

  20. Sheik,

    I think the problem is with the question. Maybe Solkhar should just answer “is the 80-year-old Muslim within his rights for marrying a 10 year old girl?”

    Best leave the pig bit out, we don’t want to insult pigs.

Comments are closed.