I wrote this post to point to the fact that besides unreliable hadith there are a lot of facts which point to a completely different age for Aischa’s marriage, and the fact that alll these ages vary so wildly should make any reasonable person think.
If they are not a pedophile…

As long as the supposedly unhealthily young age of Aischa is being used to sanctify pedophilia i think it is important to keep pointing out the flaws.

I don’t intend to sound in any way combative, but it is very easy to discredit opposing views with a very wide sweeping statement. “All Cretans are liars; one of their own has said so.” Likewise, you are all arguing that Aisha couldn’t have been between six or nine years old, because that would reflect badly on the character of the prophet whom you follow. And you agree with each other, and tell each other that it’s not possible, because that would have uncomfortable implications. But truth in the Greek is aletheia, which is literally un-forgetfulness. And remembering the facts is the best way to preserve truth. God is light; and in Him there is no darkness at all.

So, not that I’m really interested in the age of Aisha – alhoewel she was a very interesting woman – I come down to this simple fact: Injul and the Koran do not agree; Torah (the first five books of the Bible), and the Prophets – what is somewhat erroneously called the “Old” Testament, or covenant – and the Koran do not agree, either. The best way to avoid this “point of tension” in your belief system, which is also a source of discomfort, is to generalise that Injul cannot possibly be true, because then the Koran would be false. Without looking at the converse of that statement, I’m afraid you have reached an irrational conclusion, based on no evidence.

I do not have sufficient evidence to comment on the veracity of your Koran, except to say that the most ancient versions found in Yemen are very difficult to decipher into modern arabic, and cannot comment (I don’t particularly feel like some jihadist putting me ‘behind the sun’ this week, either). But I will tell you the evidence that I have found.

Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me.” So Truth is absolute; God does not change. In Him there is no shadow of turning; He is not like man, to lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. His words are trustworthy and true.

Injul as we have it has a well-documented history. There are 15000 extant copies of the Gospel of John in the original Greek, alone. The first four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were all written within seventy years of the death and resurrection of Christ. We have actual evidence of this: parchment fragments in Egypt pinpoint the Gospel of John to be written earlier than 100AD – this is based on carbon dating. Not completely accurate, of course, but fit for the purpose. From textual clues (“There is in Jerusalem …a pool with five collonades, called Bethesda” – in the present tense) that it was even written before AD70, the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans.

Luke, the only “second-generation” New Testament writer, was a physician, was an excellent historian, who wrote his Gospel from eye-witness sources. He travelled extensively with Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles, as he was called. He also wrote the book of Acts.

Criteria for inclusion in the Canon were simple: did these men know Jesus personally? Or did they have direct inspiration from Him? Remember that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. The others followed Him while He taught on earth. Matthew was the reformed Roman tax collector; John was the disciple whom Jesus loved; John Mark was Peter’s companion, and it’s generally accepted that he wrote down a lot of Peter’s eye-witness testimony. The writers of Injul were accepted by their identity, rather than their words. These people had spoken with the Messiah, the Christ, the Root and Branch of Jesse, face to face. His Spirit dwelt in them, as He does in me.

I find it very …insulting… that Jews and Christians are accused of tampering with the holy Word of God Himself. Our hands would fall off ; our tongues would rot in our mouths. Every word of God is flawless. And it is Alive. He is Alive. And He reigns forevermore – Amen.

But can anybody tell me why muslims don’t already know this? My points are mainly based on the history of the life of the prophet. I would have thought all Muslims should have these dates at their fingertips!
I had to look them up!

And I really think that this idea of Aischa being so very young should be made a stop to. There is so little evidence to support it, and such strong logic evidence against!

In ‘A’isha biography, she said that she was 13 years old when she lost the necklaces.

Yes, but she didn’t write that did she? somebody else wrote it. So somebody else who liked the idea of of marrying underage children could have put it in. And if you read the post there is far more evidence of her being older so it seems the biography was adapted to suit the idea of her marrying at an absurd young age