QUOTE(zamorin @ Aug 19 2019, 09:59 AM)
I very well know he's a Christian Fundamentalist but it doesn't change the fact that what he says is correct. A claim stands or falls on it's own merit and is independent on the one who is making the claim. I don't like him either btw. He's a hypocrite for not seeing the immorality of his own religion yet espousing faults with Islam alone. The Christian equivalent of the mentally and morally challenged Zakir Naik.
What do you expect Muslims to tell? Ofcourse they are going to defend him and claim he was not a paedophile (actually some do claim he is but defend it as being some Arab culture back then) and will do anything to deny or dance around it. The correct age of Aishah even by the Muslim scholars themselves is close to 12. OK let's just suppose she was 16. Do you know the horrific background of how she was taken as his wife? After killing her own parents in front of her. You can throw consent right out of the window.
Quran makes a grandiose claim that "killing one human is like killing the whole of humanity". How come then he didn't stick to that moral principles in the Quran? Are prophets supposed to be excluded from it or the ones who champions their own principles? I 100% expect another tap dance. That's the problem with all religions and it's adherents.
There is a disagreement even within the Muslim scholars themselves about her age and here you are telling she is confirmed to be 16. Some puts here age when she was married at 6, 9, 12 and reaching the age of puberty and every other age in between but no one states it as 16.
Aisha's age at the time of her marriage is frequently mentioned in Islamic literature. According to John Esposito, Aisha was married to Muhammad in Mecca in 624CE, after Hegira to Medina and the Battle of Badr. Several scholars interpret this to indicate that she reached puberty at this age
, although her age at the time is the subject of dispute. Al-Tabari says she was nine
at the time her marriage was consummated. Sahih al-Bukhari's hadith says "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old
and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old;" other sources differ on the age of marriage, but agree that the marriage was not consummated at the time of the marriage contract. All biographical information on Muhammad and his companions was first recorded over a century after his death, but the ahadith and sīra (traditional Islamic biographies of Muhammad) provide records of early Islam through an unbroken chain of transmission. Various hadith stating that Aisha was either nine or ten at the time of her consummation come from collections with sahih status, meaning they are regarded as reputable by most Sunni Muslims.
 Some other traditional sources also mention Aisha's age. The sīra of Ibn Ishaq edited by Ibn Hisham states that she was nine or ten years old at the consummation. The historian al-Tabari also states that she was nine. Marriage at a young age was not unheard of at the time, and Aisha's marriage to Muhammad may have had a political connotation, as her father Abu Bakr was an influential man in the community. Abu Bakr, on his part, may have sought to further the bond of kinship between Muhammad and himself by joining their families together in marriage via Aisha. Leila Ahmed notes that Aisha's betrothal and marriage to Muhammad are presented as ordinary in Islamic literature, and may indicate that it was not unusual for children to be married to their elders in that era.
Actually only few muslims know that aisha was 16 and not below 10, most muslims even google defend this point by talking about the legal marriage age of some states in the US being below 10 and that it was the norm back than for child marriages to happen. Factually Aishah was 16 when she married the prophet, and that the hadith narrated a mentally ill person. The problem with a lot of hadiths even one that is said to be sahih is that they are factually incorrect about various events and items or rather show that islam is not from god.
The way the hadith system works is that quite often it has a long chain of narrators, but even so if the original or source is bad, than the entire chain is useless because all the chain does is verify whether or not such a thing was said but never verifies the factual part of what was said.
And even more annoying is that i should not be here explaining or defending Islam, but i would like people to argue on better points. If you read down in the point about the marriage, it stated that her age was not confirmed, but a more scientific approach verifies her age to be above 13 at the point of marriage based on various other events and sources studied making the traditional hadith false. I think the main issue with muslims is that they are unable to accept a hadith can be false and so a lot of false things are easily spread. I recently debated with the ustaz about a hadith (specifically al-fath 40) which mentioned that the angel told muhammad that it didnt like dogs and wouldnt enter a house with a dog or picture, as i know no angel considers presence of a person, animal, picture(was searching for ruling on pictures, 1 sauce all pictures are unacceptable quoting this), altar or statue to be an item which would make them decide not to enter a place, especially if given a task by god. The ustaz still considered such hadiths to be accurate and true despite being proven completely false. Thing is, i have not yet encountered a dog that even if it barks madly at others would bark at me when passing by homes.
So the hadiths clash with scientific study, one could conduct a scientific study and find a lot of hadith to be false. Its easy to make up a hadith for people to believe it to be true and say things that the prophet didnt say, which makes the question more interesting of whether or not they would reject things that are clearly untrue or cling on to them and show that they clearly do not understand what a religion from god is like.
I would take the results of a scientific study over a chain of narrators who say one thing and pass the message on, which is likely to get messed up so the hadith system is unreliable. To give you an example, while the exact sentence narrated would be the same, but not the understanding as the scholar would most often misinterpret things and then mess things up more as things go down the chain as most like to take only a part of something rather than the whole thing. This is something everyone is guilty of. critics quote partial text and when i study it i find that reading before and after it is totally irrelevant. Muslims do the same to the old and new testament when looking for proof about muhammad failing to consider the entire sentence and not a part of it.
Short version is, muslims believe their prophet to be a pedophile, science says otherwise.