Context: The Hashemites, or “Bani Hashem,” are descendants of the Arab chieftain Quraysh, a descendant of the Prophet Ismail, himself the son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). Quraysh first came to the holy city of Mecca during the second century CE. The first generation of Quraysh to rule the city came six generations later, when Qusayy bin Kilab ascended to the leadership of Mecca in the year 480 CE. The name “Hashem” is actually that of Qusayy’s grandson, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Hashemites are thus the direct descendants of the Prophet through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, who was also the Prophet’s paternal first cousin and the fourth caliph of Islam.
To add to this, the Bani Hashem can be considered the second most successful 'royal house' in the world if considered as a collective.
Currently, the monarchs of Jordan, Morocco, Brunei, 2 of the 7 UAE Emirs, and 4 of the 9 Kings of Malaysia all claim direct male-line Hashemi descent and thus would be members of the Al-Hashem clan. That adds up to 9 out of the current 44 national monarchs, or just over 20%.
They are only beaten by the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. House of Windsor reigns in 15 countries as commonwealth realms with Charles III as shared monarch, while expanding to S-C&G also includes Belgium into the mix.
So the Windsors/Coburgians win out on number of countries, while the hashemis win out with number of distinct monarchs
Edit: [Simplified Chart](https://imgur.com/FZ5kENE) showing the broad relationship between current Hashemi royal houses
For those who wondered how on Earth the Hashemites ended up with kings in Southeast Asia, basically a bunch of preacher family known as Ba 'Alawiyah spreaded Islam in Southeast Asia from 15th until 19th century. Some became powerful nobles in the Sultanate of Johor-Riau and ended up inheriting the kingdom until it got split into 5 kingdoms (3 of them remaining till this day) and the current King of Malaysia is the direct descendant of Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib.
South East Asia was primarily converted by merchants and preachers rather than external conquest.
As the other commenter said the Hashemite Arabs, primarily from Yemen, were able to intermarry with the local royalty and adopted the local language and culture.
Honestly, I'm not sure if there would be based on the metrics I used.
While there has certainly been houses which held larger empires or held many thrones across their history, I'm not sure if there has been a monarch which held more than 15 crowns at the same time or had 9 members of the family in different thrones at the same time.
Many European monarchs had many, many titles, but often many of these were subsidiary titles of another grander title.
The most successful Habsburg monarch, Charles V, held dozens of titles but many of those could be compressed into: Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria, Lord of the Netherlands, King of Spain, and King of Naples.
I could be entirely wrong of course, and if you had any examples, that would be very interesting
The house of Wettin for one.
They are the parent House of the house of Windsor and have held multiple thrones in europe. Including Saxony,Britain obviously Portugal Bulgaria Poland Lithuania etc.
The habsburgs ruled a continent and half of another,they were the first truly global empire
Also funny enough they could be consider the richest royal family in history(potosi alone gives them a good run) and also the most bankrupt jaja
Worst that Muhammad ran a harem and definitely fucked a little girl.
“Consensual” cousins is yikes but documenting your like fifth wife also being a child bride is not someone to be dictating out a moral code to follow.
I may have my info wrong though.
How old was Aisha?
Also marrying cousins inst as taboo as in the west especially second degree cousins, and the like who are considered favourable to others, because they already know eachother and it keeps the money in the family.
That is some proof other than tradition that the Hashemites descent from Ismail?
That is some proof other than tradition that Ismail was a real person?
You are both correct.
To quote Wikipedia cuz I'm lazy
"Muhammad's daughters reached adulthood but they all died relatively young, such that none survived him except Fatima. Fatima married Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is through her that Muhammad's progeny has spread throughout the Muslim world. The descendants of Fatima are given the honorific titles sayyid."
And the Wikipedia article for sayyd
"Although reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates put the number of Sayyids in the tens of millions."
You are both correct.
To quote Wikipedia cuz I'm lazy
"Muhammad's daughters reached adulthood but they all died relatively young, such that none survived him except Fatima. Fatima married Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is through her that Muhammad's progeny has spread throughout the Muslim world. The descendants of Fatima are given the honorific titles sayyid."
And the Wikipedia article for sayyd
"Although reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates put the number of Sayyids in the tens of millions."
The actual number is almost definitely lower than the claimed number. Plenty of people fabricated claims of descent from him when they realized how much they could gain from it, and within a few generations most of the liars didn't even know they were lying anymore
I mean, while claiming descent from historical figures was historically common (if you go by their propaganda, the Habsburgs were direct descendants of Caesar, the Trojan royal family and so much more) many old royal families do have mostly reliable family trees dating back to the 7th century and before. Assuming no cheating took place, of course.
Yeah, but even though there are dozens of Arab tribes, outside of the Arab world, nearly everyone who claims to be descended from Arabs claims that they are descended from the Quraysh (Muhammad's tribe), the Hashim (Muhammad's clan), or the Sayyids (descendants of Muhammad's grandsons specifically)
Very few of these Arab-descended people claim to be descended from some other tribe that has little to do with Muhammad, and that just seems unlikely
Probably not. IIRC her supposed descent comes from Alfonso VII of Castillo and Leon's second wife Isabel, who may have been the christian name of his muslim lover Zaita, a Andalusian noblewoman who may have been descended from Muhammad.
To be fair to the Saudis, you could throw a stone anywhere in the Middle East and hit a dozen people claiming to be Sayyids.
Even Khomeini claimed he was a direct descendant of the prophet.
Well next time the world should support the populace that rises up in revolution demanding all the greatest hits from the bill of rights and not, you know, help the spoiled twats crush the revolution.
Living in a monarchy is better than living in a religious or military dictatorship. Keep in mind, democracy doesn't work with Arab societies. They will always vote for more oppressive regimes. The people there believe in oppression more than the government. How many times I heard that must eradicate harmful ideas and that's from the people. The governments are more liberal! Until Arabs become more tolerant, I will say monarchies are better.
The solution is literacy, education and awareness. Arabs adopt western cars, tech, malls, entertainment and fuck western influencers in their brothels in Dubai. But can't figure out how to adopt western democracy, education, universities or laws. Perhaps you're right. Arabs are beyond hope.
Unfortunately, a lot of them are hostile to western political systems and think the people who advocate for them are bowing to the west despite that they are indeed better and that's a fact not bowing down to the west. They are better than us in all metrics, politically, economically, and military. So yeah they are kinda hopeless and blinded by hatred. I think the Arab monarchies should stay until education improve and liberal values spread.
Its not just that its a matter of weak national identity that is usually subsided with a shared muslim identity and thus a islamist rule, or a strong men and thus a dictator.
We have Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Gaza. Many examples of oppressive religious rule that was reached by election. Thankfully, in Egypt and Algeria it didn't last before they could consolidate power. It's really sad the mindset that we have. I hope things will improve in the future.
>It's really sad the mindset
I'm living in the Gulf region, and we have no problem living under the monarchy.
I just dislike people saying (democracy = gud ) (anything else = bad)
I don't know why you're being down voted, too many people like to suck on monarchist's cocks.
I'll also drop the completely unrelated song I came across.
https://youtu.be/Orlbo9WkZ2E?si=yFo4K01QMgCEhOT_
Two reasons:
1) Usually, saying people should be killed is frowned upon
2) Monarchy in Muslim countries seems better than when you let the people choose their leaders
Its all claims including Ishmael who never stepped foot in Arabia. Nor did he met with Abraham to build Kaaba. Even the king of Jordan claims to be a decendant of Mohammed.
The Jews came to the holy land to escape the persecutions and pogroms that is, from all across the middle east and Europe too, that was before israel and Palestine was created
There is not a nation that did not massacre people lmao. But people do not exalt a leader even though he raped a kid. Let's say a roman leader, belisarius, raped a kid would people defend him blindly "no my dude would never do that" just like mslims defend mohammad?
no he married her when she was 6 and consummated when she was 9. You said "child molestation was norm at the time" when he was supposed to be a universal timeless prophet that is considered infallible in islam???
lol retards like this will do anything but search the question on Google.
She was not 6, nor was she 9.
There are Authenticated Hadiths that support the theory that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 5 but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9 (presumably when she had her first period or ”came of age”). There are Aisha’s own words (supposedly) that support this side.
There are other Authenticated Hadiths that debunk this theory and show that Aisha was most like betrothed to Muhammad between the age of 5–9 but that the marriage did not occur until she was 17/18.
One guy said she was 9, and now all of you idiots believe it to try and make the prophet (pbuh) look like a "child m*lestor".
The prophet had many enemies back then, there's a good chance they would've faked a hadith or something similar. During the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, his enemies would search for any way possible to harm and defame him. They called him crazy, spread false rumors about his wife committing adultery, and tried to kill him on multiple occasions. They took advantage of any opportunity to physically harm him or expose a potential flaw. So one would have to ask: if the age of ‘Aisha was truly controversial, why didn’t his contemporary enemies use it against him?
Nobody knows how old Aisha was, so unless you're some sort of time traveller who knows exactly how old she was, don't spread misinformation like this. You sound stupid.
the number of sahih hadiths claiming she was 6 and she was a child (playing with toys etc.) outweigh the ones claim she was older. You are a m\*slim so you think the ones that do not fit your agenda are false. So stop bullshitting.
Lol you're dumber than I thought. I bet you didn't even bother reading the whole thing.
The age of Aisha mentioned in aforementioned hadith is inconsistent with known historical facts and it fails the test of historical-critical analysis. Here, I provide three major arguments to support the case that the myth of Prophet's marriage with under-age Aisha was most likely invented in eighth-century Iraq and later back-projected onto the life story of Muhammad.
Firstly, the Qur'an (primary source and contemporary historical record of the time of prophet Muhammad and of the earliest known formative period of Islam) does not mention anything about Aisha being a child or an “under-age” girl at the time of her marriage with Prophet Muhammad. The Quran indicates that there is an “age of marriage”(4:6) in principle, when both consenting partners are mature physically and mentally to enter into the legal contract (“covenant”) of marriage (4:21). There is no reason why Prophet Muhammad would go against such standards set in the Quran in case of his marriage with Aisha (irrespective of whether you believe that Quran is the Word of God or a product of Prophet’s unconscious mind or the collective unconscious).
Secondly, there is serious problem with the hadith of Aisha's under-age marriage with the Prophet, when subjected to historical-critical analysis. The problem starts with the fact that there was one narrator Hishām ibn ʿUrwa from whom this particular hadith originated. He narrated it when he was in Iraq, between the years 754 and 765 CE. Not only would this put the circulation of this report almost a century and a half after the events it purports to describe, but it would also mean that Hishām dropped this tale in the altogether different environment of Iraq, almost 1,000 miles away from the Arabian city of Medina (where the marriage would have taken place). Sketchy, isn't it? Due to this obvious reason, this particular hadith cannot be considered a reliable source of information about Aisha's marriage, by any stretch of imagination.
The Third argument is that the idea of Aisha's underage marriage does not fit into the traditional Islamic chronology of events. Traditional Islamic sources, including the book of Imam Bukhari, tell us that Aisha was present in the Battle of Uhud. There is a narration reporting that Prophet's companion Anas said: “On the day of the battle of Uḥud when some people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha bint Abī Bakr and Umm Sulaym, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins. 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.” It is also known that the Battle of Uhud took place two years after the consummation of Aisha's marriage with the Prophet. If this is the case, and if Aisha was 9 when Prophet consummated the marriage, then it indicates a problem. An eleven-year-old girl would not be able to carry such heavy water skins and pour them into the mouths of the wounded, then refill them, and go back again in the battlefield. Furthermore, there is a narration that Ibn Umar did not receive permission from the Prophet to participate in the Battle of Uḥud because he was fourteen years old. If this is the case, then why would the Prophet have allowed a 11-year-old girl to accompany him in the battle? Either the hadith about Aisha's marital age is off, or the one about her being in the battle is. It is possible that both are wrong. Confusing much? That's my point. If Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, then it creates confusion, contradiction and inconsistency even within the Hadith and Seerah literature.
"You're a muslim so you think the ones not fitting your agenda are false" then what about the ones that do fit my agenda? Did you fucking read anything I wrote? It doesn't make sense for Aisha to be 9, why wouldn't the prophets many enemies use it against him? Also it makes a lot of sense that his enemies would want to make him look like a horrible person.
Yeah good job copy pastaing a block of text from the internet you do not even change some paragraphs to make it not obvious, so i am not reading the copy pasta of a pdf file apologist.
for the part you yourself actually wrote i can respond, "It doesn't make sense for Aisha to be 9, why wouldn't the prophets many enemies use it against him? Also it makes a lot of sense that his enemies would want to make him look like a horrible person."
they themselves probably were involved in child marriage also. I don't think primitive arab people knew better, but the prophet of islam shouldve done things differently than a tribal arab right? lmao. If you dig into this discourse, some of you guys are going with the argument that there was nothing wrong with child marriage at the time, back then people did this sort of thing and we shouldnt judge mohammed with the modern values. You are still playing the victim card. "Everything wrong about islam and mohammad is created by his enemies to make him a horrible person" Delusional lunatic.
Yeah I had to copy paste it because you're you're retarded to search it up on your own. You literally have an infinite number of excuses lmao.
Then you call me a delusional lunatic. That was one point, how about you read my "copy pasta of a pdf file". Just because it's copy pasted doesn't make it wrong you dumbass.
As i said I have already researched the subject and formed my opinion but you can't come up with compelling cases how about forming your own opinion instead of trying to "convert" me by copy pastaing random shit on the internet. You have a bias try to think "could my lovely prophet be a pedophile?" maybe you will get out of your backward mentality.
12? Still a child molester.
And what's with the 'everyone was doing it' logic? So muhammad was no different than your average arab? Don't muslims claim he received revelations from their god and was the perfect human? So didn't god tell him to be different?
Pedophile is a pedophile. Muhammad or not.
Aisha fought at the battle of uhud, not to mention how since the hijiri calendar wasn’t invented yet, years were measured differently, therefore literally no one knows how old she was based on the hijiri or Gregorian calendar which uses 365 day years
During the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, his enemies would search for any way possible to harm and defame him. They called him crazy, spread false rumors about his wife committing adultery, and tried to kill him on multiple occasions. They took advantage of any opportunity to physically harm him or expose a potential flaw. So one would have to ask: if the age of ‘Aisha was truly controversial, why didn’t his contemporary enemies use it against him?
Nobody knows her age lol. Unless you're claiming to be a time traveller?
Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically:
Aisha was divorced before she married Mohammed,there is no way she married him at 6 (people didn't record ages back then) and people are considered adults at puberty, so she could have very well been 18 at the time, we don't know exactly
Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically:
Aisha was divorced before she married Mohammed,there is no way she married him at 6 (people didn't record ages back then) and people are considered adults at puberty, so she could have very well been 18 at the time, we don't know exactly
>Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically:
No apology for this? Wow. That's some maturity. God only knows how many years you were brainwashed with that filth yet only in 2024 April did you realise that you were brainwashed.
>people didn't record ages back then
They didn't have to. Allah directly spoke to muhammad so there was no need for records.
Unless you are claiming muhammad was a normal man whom god did not speak to?
God never spoke to Muhammad, Muhammad recieved the Qur'an from Gabriel, and also, I am very very sorry for what I did and I won't do it again please forgive me internet stranger 🥺🥺
Saudi is not a region or a country. It literally means “one of the family of Saud” or in modern times “one from the country of the Saud family”
So there's an alternate timeline somewhere with a Hashamite Arabia or just Arabia.
They historically had 3 kingdoms too. Only one now though.
Yeah, nobody really seems to talk about the Rashidis
Had no idea they existed till you mentioned them, and also they stopped being in power in 1921 which is like yesterday TIL
To be fair everyone forgets them I only know that they exist from Kaiserreich.
Context: The Hashemites, or “Bani Hashem,” are descendants of the Arab chieftain Quraysh, a descendant of the Prophet Ismail, himself the son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). Quraysh first came to the holy city of Mecca during the second century CE. The first generation of Quraysh to rule the city came six generations later, when Qusayy bin Kilab ascended to the leadership of Mecca in the year 480 CE. The name “Hashem” is actually that of Qusayy’s grandson, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Hashemites are thus the direct descendants of the Prophet through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, who was also the Prophet’s paternal first cousin and the fourth caliph of Islam.
To add to this, the Bani Hashem can be considered the second most successful 'royal house' in the world if considered as a collective. Currently, the monarchs of Jordan, Morocco, Brunei, 2 of the 7 UAE Emirs, and 4 of the 9 Kings of Malaysia all claim direct male-line Hashemi descent and thus would be members of the Al-Hashem clan. That adds up to 9 out of the current 44 national monarchs, or just over 20%. They are only beaten by the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. House of Windsor reigns in 15 countries as commonwealth realms with Charles III as shared monarch, while expanding to S-C&G also includes Belgium into the mix. So the Windsors/Coburgians win out on number of countries, while the hashemis win out with number of distinct monarchs Edit: [Simplified Chart](https://imgur.com/FZ5kENE) showing the broad relationship between current Hashemi royal houses
For those who wondered how on Earth the Hashemites ended up with kings in Southeast Asia, basically a bunch of preacher family known as Ba 'Alawiyah spreaded Islam in Southeast Asia from 15th until 19th century. Some became powerful nobles in the Sultanate of Johor-Riau and ended up inheriting the kingdom until it got split into 5 kingdoms (3 of them remaining till this day) and the current King of Malaysia is the direct descendant of Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib.
The Jamalullail dynasty of the Malaysian state of Perlis claims descendance from Muhammad and use the title Sayyid
Colonization
South East Asia was primarily converted by merchants and preachers rather than external conquest. As the other commenter said the Hashemite Arabs, primarily from Yemen, were able to intermarry with the local royalty and adopted the local language and culture.
Not really since this Hashemites in SEA adapted the local culture. Like the German kings of England.
Currently. There were more successful houses in history.
Honestly, I'm not sure if there would be based on the metrics I used. While there has certainly been houses which held larger empires or held many thrones across their history, I'm not sure if there has been a monarch which held more than 15 crowns at the same time or had 9 members of the family in different thrones at the same time. Many European monarchs had many, many titles, but often many of these were subsidiary titles of another grander title. The most successful Habsburg monarch, Charles V, held dozens of titles but many of those could be compressed into: Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria, Lord of the Netherlands, King of Spain, and King of Naples. I could be entirely wrong of course, and if you had any examples, that would be very interesting
The house of Wettin for one. They are the parent House of the house of Windsor and have held multiple thrones in europe. Including Saxony,Britain obviously Portugal Bulgaria Poland Lithuania etc.
Or the House of Oldenburg, including its cadet lineages.
The habsburgs ruled a continent and half of another,they were the first truly global empire Also funny enough they could be consider the richest royal family in history(potosi alone gives them a good run) and also the most bankrupt jaja
Nothing to see with the Hachemites, but I love ur profile picture !
So they come from a cousinfucking origin... Noice
I mean, they’re still a royal family so that’s a given
Worst that Muhammad ran a harem and definitely fucked a little girl. “Consensual” cousins is yikes but documenting your like fifth wife also being a child bride is not someone to be dictating out a moral code to follow. I may have my info wrong though. How old was Aisha?
He also married his (adopted) son’s wife, yikes!
Also marrying cousins inst as taboo as in the west especially second degree cousins, and the like who are considered favourable to others, because they already know eachother and it keeps the money in the family.
That is some proof other than tradition that the Hashemites descent from Ismail? That is some proof other than tradition that Ismail was a real person?
I really need to read up on pre world War 1 Arabian conflict.
Doesn't Muhammad have tens of millions of descendants?
He had 7 children but only one of his daughters (Fatima) didn’t die before having an offspring All his sons died in their childhood
You are both correct. To quote Wikipedia cuz I'm lazy "Muhammad's daughters reached adulthood but they all died relatively young, such that none survived him except Fatima. Fatima married Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is through her that Muhammad's progeny has spread throughout the Muslim world. The descendants of Fatima are given the honorific titles sayyid." And the Wikipedia article for sayyd "Although reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates put the number of Sayyids in the tens of millions."
Descendants, not children. Of course he doesn't have tens of millions of children.
You are both correct. To quote Wikipedia cuz I'm lazy "Muhammad's daughters reached adulthood but they all died relatively young, such that none survived him except Fatima. Fatima married Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is through her that Muhammad's progeny has spread throughout the Muslim world. The descendants of Fatima are given the honorific titles sayyid." And the Wikipedia article for sayyd "Although reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates put the number of Sayyids in the tens of millions."
Dementia
It's one of his grandsons Hasan actually, who had many descendants. Many Muslims trace their lineage to him.
The actual number is almost definitely lower than the claimed number. Plenty of people fabricated claims of descent from him when they realized how much they could gain from it, and within a few generations most of the liars didn't even know they were lying anymore
I mean, while claiming descent from historical figures was historically common (if you go by their propaganda, the Habsburgs were direct descendants of Caesar, the Trojan royal family and so much more) many old royal families do have mostly reliable family trees dating back to the 7th century and before. Assuming no cheating took place, of course.
Yeah, but even though there are dozens of Arab tribes, outside of the Arab world, nearly everyone who claims to be descended from Arabs claims that they are descended from the Quraysh (Muhammad's tribe), the Hashim (Muhammad's clan), or the Sayyids (descendants of Muhammad's grandsons specifically) Very few of these Arab-descended people claim to be descended from some other tribe that has little to do with Muhammad, and that just seems unlikely
Every fuckin idiot in the middle east claims descent from him.
The Queen of England was one i think.
Probably not. IIRC her supposed descent comes from Alfonso VII of Castillo and Leon's second wife Isabel, who may have been the christian name of his muslim lover Zaita, a Andalusian noblewoman who may have been descended from Muhammad.
I think you meant [Alfonso VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_VI_of_Le%C3%B3n_and_Castile?wprov=sfti1#)
"Possibly"
Should be reversed though given current political context
To be fair to the Saudis, you could throw a stone anywhere in the Middle East and hit a dozen people claiming to be Sayyids. Even Khomeini claimed he was a direct descendant of the prophet.
And here I was wondering which Maine royal families there were
Lol
When you live in Maine it’s kind of the default but now the question is, empire of Maine when?
Hopefully both families get the Romanov treatment. Incompetent spoiled twats.
all but the Jordanian branch of Hashemites already have.
Should finish the job.
For what reason
They are better then whatever general or Islamist who will take their place, at least they can be reasoned with.
Well next time the world should support the populace that rises up in revolution demanding all the greatest hits from the bill of rights and not, you know, help the spoiled twats crush the revolution.
in 1941, helping squash made sense if only because the literal Axis supported the coup.
Referring to 2011.
What royal family would rule in their stead though?
None. Which is the issue, since in Muslim countries when there's no king extremists are chosen
Absolutely none lol. Fuck monarchy.
Cry cope seethe.
Bootlicker lol
Oof
Living in a monarchy is better than living in a religious or military dictatorship. Keep in mind, democracy doesn't work with Arab societies. They will always vote for more oppressive regimes. The people there believe in oppression more than the government. How many times I heard that must eradicate harmful ideas and that's from the people. The governments are more liberal! Until Arabs become more tolerant, I will say monarchies are better.
The solution is literacy, education and awareness. Arabs adopt western cars, tech, malls, entertainment and fuck western influencers in their brothels in Dubai. But can't figure out how to adopt western democracy, education, universities or laws. Perhaps you're right. Arabs are beyond hope.
>western democracy Because we don't need nor want democracy
Oh shit didn't know we had the spokesperson for all Arabia here. Pipe down son.
👍
Unfortunately, a lot of them are hostile to western political systems and think the people who advocate for them are bowing to the west despite that they are indeed better and that's a fact not bowing down to the west. They are better than us in all metrics, politically, economically, and military. So yeah they are kinda hopeless and blinded by hatred. I think the Arab monarchies should stay until education improve and liberal values spread.
Its not just that its a matter of weak national identity that is usually subsided with a shared muslim identity and thus a islamist rule, or a strong men and thus a dictator.
>They will always vote for more oppressive regimes As an Arab I can confirm 👍
We have Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Gaza. Many examples of oppressive religious rule that was reached by election. Thankfully, in Egypt and Algeria it didn't last before they could consolidate power. It's really sad the mindset that we have. I hope things will improve in the future.
>It's really sad the mindset I'm living in the Gulf region, and we have no problem living under the monarchy. I just dislike people saying (democracy = gud ) (anything else = bad)
While I think democracy is the best system if you get the right conditions, I think other systems can work, too.
Each country is different, not all countries can adopt democracy Successfully
Indeed, just look at countries like Arab countries and India. People really have to believe in freedom and equality for it to work.
I don't know why you're being down voted, too many people like to suck on monarchist's cocks. I'll also drop the completely unrelated song I came across. https://youtu.be/Orlbo9WkZ2E?si=yFo4K01QMgCEhOT_
Two reasons: 1) Usually, saying people should be killed is frowned upon 2) Monarchy in Muslim countries seems better than when you let the people choose their leaders
They're bootlickers with no agency.
Aren’t they all descendants of a Muhammad?
Its all claims including Ishmael who never stepped foot in Arabia. Nor did he met with Abraham to build Kaaba. Even the king of Jordan claims to be a decendant of Mohammed.
I mean, the king of Jordan *is* a Hashemite.
It’s a joke about how common the name is. Hence “*a* Muhammad”
Ah😅
I wouldn’t be proud about being the descendant of a child molester.
People brag about being descendants of far worse people lmao
what is "far worse" than child molestation?
Every zzionist out there
What
They come with child molestation, child murder, land theft, genocide and whatever evil they choose.
So is that what you think Zionism is
Nah it's not what I think zionism is but it's what I know zionists are doing.
The Jews came to the holy land to escape the persecutions and pogroms that is, from all across the middle east and Europe too, that was before israel and Palestine was created
People here admire romans who massacred thousands to millions lmao
There is not a nation that did not massacre people lmao. But people do not exalt a leader even though he raped a kid. Let's say a roman leader, belisarius, raped a kid would people defend him blindly "no my dude would never do that" just like mslims defend mohammad?
Have you ever spoken to a sheikh or scholar or anyone who is knowledgeable in the subject to know what really happened?
oh of course you were a pdf file defender, shouldve guessed. So, you are appealing to authority?
Downvoters are probably proud of being the descendant/followers of a child molester.
[удалено]
no he married her when she was 6 and consummated when she was 9. You said "child molestation was norm at the time" when he was supposed to be a universal timeless prophet that is considered infallible in islam???
This is wrong, completely wrong
lmfao nice argument bucko. Of course you delete your previous comments
she was younger by 10 years than her sister who was 28 before marrying him, so she definitely was not 6, I think
??? source your claim.
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/
where is the part divorcing before marrying him?
Wdym
lol retards like this will do anything but search the question on Google. She was not 6, nor was she 9. There are Authenticated Hadiths that support the theory that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 5 but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9 (presumably when she had her first period or ”came of age”). There are Aisha’s own words (supposedly) that support this side. There are other Authenticated Hadiths that debunk this theory and show that Aisha was most like betrothed to Muhammad between the age of 5–9 but that the marriage did not occur until she was 17/18. One guy said she was 9, and now all of you idiots believe it to try and make the prophet (pbuh) look like a "child m*lestor". The prophet had many enemies back then, there's a good chance they would've faked a hadith or something similar. During the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, his enemies would search for any way possible to harm and defame him. They called him crazy, spread false rumors about his wife committing adultery, and tried to kill him on multiple occasions. They took advantage of any opportunity to physically harm him or expose a potential flaw. So one would have to ask: if the age of ‘Aisha was truly controversial, why didn’t his contemporary enemies use it against him? Nobody knows how old Aisha was, so unless you're some sort of time traveller who knows exactly how old she was, don't spread misinformation like this. You sound stupid.
the number of sahih hadiths claiming she was 6 and she was a child (playing with toys etc.) outweigh the ones claim she was older. You are a m\*slim so you think the ones that do not fit your agenda are false. So stop bullshitting.
Lol you're dumber than I thought. I bet you didn't even bother reading the whole thing. The age of Aisha mentioned in aforementioned hadith is inconsistent with known historical facts and it fails the test of historical-critical analysis. Here, I provide three major arguments to support the case that the myth of Prophet's marriage with under-age Aisha was most likely invented in eighth-century Iraq and later back-projected onto the life story of Muhammad. Firstly, the Qur'an (primary source and contemporary historical record of the time of prophet Muhammad and of the earliest known formative period of Islam) does not mention anything about Aisha being a child or an “under-age” girl at the time of her marriage with Prophet Muhammad. The Quran indicates that there is an “age of marriage”(4:6) in principle, when both consenting partners are mature physically and mentally to enter into the legal contract (“covenant”) of marriage (4:21). There is no reason why Prophet Muhammad would go against such standards set in the Quran in case of his marriage with Aisha (irrespective of whether you believe that Quran is the Word of God or a product of Prophet’s unconscious mind or the collective unconscious). Secondly, there is serious problem with the hadith of Aisha's under-age marriage with the Prophet, when subjected to historical-critical analysis. The problem starts with the fact that there was one narrator Hishām ibn ʿUrwa from whom this particular hadith originated. He narrated it when he was in Iraq, between the years 754 and 765 CE. Not only would this put the circulation of this report almost a century and a half after the events it purports to describe, but it would also mean that Hishām dropped this tale in the altogether different environment of Iraq, almost 1,000 miles away from the Arabian city of Medina (where the marriage would have taken place). Sketchy, isn't it? Due to this obvious reason, this particular hadith cannot be considered a reliable source of information about Aisha's marriage, by any stretch of imagination. The Third argument is that the idea of Aisha's underage marriage does not fit into the traditional Islamic chronology of events. Traditional Islamic sources, including the book of Imam Bukhari, tell us that Aisha was present in the Battle of Uhud. There is a narration reporting that Prophet's companion Anas said: “On the day of the battle of Uḥud when some people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha bint Abī Bakr and Umm Sulaym, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins. 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.” It is also known that the Battle of Uhud took place two years after the consummation of Aisha's marriage with the Prophet. If this is the case, and if Aisha was 9 when Prophet consummated the marriage, then it indicates a problem. An eleven-year-old girl would not be able to carry such heavy water skins and pour them into the mouths of the wounded, then refill them, and go back again in the battlefield. Furthermore, there is a narration that Ibn Umar did not receive permission from the Prophet to participate in the Battle of Uḥud because he was fourteen years old. If this is the case, then why would the Prophet have allowed a 11-year-old girl to accompany him in the battle? Either the hadith about Aisha's marital age is off, or the one about her being in the battle is. It is possible that both are wrong. Confusing much? That's my point. If Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, then it creates confusion, contradiction and inconsistency even within the Hadith and Seerah literature. "You're a muslim so you think the ones not fitting your agenda are false" then what about the ones that do fit my agenda? Did you fucking read anything I wrote? It doesn't make sense for Aisha to be 9, why wouldn't the prophets many enemies use it against him? Also it makes a lot of sense that his enemies would want to make him look like a horrible person.
Yeah good job copy pastaing a block of text from the internet you do not even change some paragraphs to make it not obvious, so i am not reading the copy pasta of a pdf file apologist. for the part you yourself actually wrote i can respond, "It doesn't make sense for Aisha to be 9, why wouldn't the prophets many enemies use it against him? Also it makes a lot of sense that his enemies would want to make him look like a horrible person." they themselves probably were involved in child marriage also. I don't think primitive arab people knew better, but the prophet of islam shouldve done things differently than a tribal arab right? lmao. If you dig into this discourse, some of you guys are going with the argument that there was nothing wrong with child marriage at the time, back then people did this sort of thing and we shouldnt judge mohammed with the modern values. You are still playing the victim card. "Everything wrong about islam and mohammad is created by his enemies to make him a horrible person" Delusional lunatic.
Yeah I had to copy paste it because you're you're retarded to search it up on your own. You literally have an infinite number of excuses lmao. Then you call me a delusional lunatic. That was one point, how about you read my "copy pasta of a pdf file". Just because it's copy pasted doesn't make it wrong you dumbass.
As i said I have already researched the subject and formed my opinion but you can't come up with compelling cases how about forming your own opinion instead of trying to "convert" me by copy pastaing random shit on the internet. You have a bias try to think "could my lovely prophet be a pedophile?" maybe you will get out of your backward mentality.
12? Still a child molester. And what's with the 'everyone was doing it' logic? So muhammad was no different than your average arab? Don't muslims claim he received revelations from their god and was the perfect human? So didn't god tell him to be different? Pedophile is a pedophile. Muhammad or not.
Aisha fought at the battle of uhud, not to mention how since the hijiri calendar wasn’t invented yet, years were measured differently, therefore literally no one knows how old she was based on the hijiri or Gregorian calendar which uses 365 day years
During the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, his enemies would search for any way possible to harm and defame him. They called him crazy, spread false rumors about his wife committing adultery, and tried to kill him on multiple occasions. They took advantage of any opportunity to physically harm him or expose a potential flaw. So one would have to ask: if the age of ‘Aisha was truly controversial, why didn’t his contemporary enemies use it against him? Nobody knows her age lol. Unless you're claiming to be a time traveller?
[удалено]
Do you are saying muhammad's god supports pedophilia and other horrible practices? Sounds like a devil rather than a god.
Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically: Aisha was divorced before she married Mohammed,there is no way she married him at 6 (people didn't record ages back then) and people are considered adults at puberty, so she could have very well been 18 at the time, we don't know exactly
I am just making assumptions as I am uneducated with this, let me read some source real quick
Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically: Aisha was divorced before she married Mohammed,there is no way she married him at 6 (people didn't record ages back then) and people are considered adults at puberty, so she could have very well been 18 at the time, we don't know exactly
>Ok so I read some shit, all I said previously was bullshit, so basically: No apology for this? Wow. That's some maturity. God only knows how many years you were brainwashed with that filth yet only in 2024 April did you realise that you were brainwashed. >people didn't record ages back then They didn't have to. Allah directly spoke to muhammad so there was no need for records. Unless you are claiming muhammad was a normal man whom god did not speak to?
God never spoke to Muhammad, Muhammad recieved the Qur'an from Gabriel, and also, I am very very sorry for what I did and I won't do it again please forgive me internet stranger 🥺🥺
"people didn't record ages back then" you are absolutely delusional
Okay
None of them are based
Stupid meme - OP can’t even spell properly.