You now change the topic after a good grilling. My point is that you claim Bukhari supports your claims that she was a child, a point disproven. My second point is that you lied! You said that the website (run by my local mosque) which you brought up in your previous post does not refer to fath al bari, but they do! liar! To cover your lie, you now claim that you omitted the reference to avoid confusion, to avoid confusion? We both know you omitted it to confuse people! Because that's what happens when you do not properly reference things! confusion! Now instead of apologizing for these lies, you now want to change your argument and say that fath al bari was written by a scholar, I agree he was a scholar but scholars make mistakes, they are not angels, and the author (Ibn Hajar) has some mistakes. I'm stopping you from using Bukhari for your claims. Engagement is. Marriage is consummated at adolescent.
We are on the same topic. The words in brackets are written in Al-Bukhari, associated with a co-author called Fath al-Bari. Whether I mentioned him in my reference or not does not change the fact that it is mentioned in Al-Bukhari and it is accurate. Unless you can prove it is not accurate, it remains authorized by your Islamic scholars. No, I never said that. You accused me of visiting an Islamophobic website and I showed you where exactly I obtained my information. I gave you the reason why I omitted to "double" reference. Afterall, I searched Al-bukhari (not any other book) using that website and another Islamic website. In both instances, I got the co-author's information in brackets which means it is in fact authorized by Al-Bukhari. Aha! So now that you got yourself grilled, you will point fingers at your "most valued Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari" and accuse him of making a mistake. If it was actually a mistake, how come it still exists in your Islamic books and Al-Bukhari until today? Your argument remains very weak. Go get a Bukhari text book and see it yourself. Not according to the Islamic reference I provided.
Writtin IN A REVISED version of Bukhari!!!!! This version came centuries later. They are not co-authors, Fath Al Bari is where the "commentary" was extracted from and then added to Bukhari centuries later. Ibn Hajar is the author of Fath Al Bari, and you can look up that he came centuries after Bukhari. Therefore this "commentary" which you base your claim that she was a child is not in the early Bukhari books, it's not his words (which you did indeed claim), but rather it's in a revised Bukhari, not revised in the sense that it has been edited, but "commentary" from Ibn Hajar was added. Commentary is in brackets, and it will give you the reference for where this commentary came from in this case Fath Al Bari. If you got it from that website, then why was the reference to fath al bari omitted, therefore there is no evidence that you got it from there. The texts in the brackets were not authored by Bukhari! They are not co-authors, they did not even live in the same period of time. The original book by bukhari did not contain this. I did, and I did not see it. --- Don't add more sins to your records, you should know by now that I will expose your lies.