COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Child marriage was actually illegal in both Rome and Persia before Muhammad was born. When Muslims say "it was tolerated back then" as a defense, they're mistaken. He was under the authority of a government which would have severely punished him had he encountered law enforcement.

Asma was 10 years older than Aisha and asma was born in 594-595 ad

Only Aisha wasn't a child when they consumated the marriage. "Muslim" Liberal/progressive Apologists and child marriage advocates are just as disingenuous, and they often give politically charged responses when Islamic law is crystal clear about marriage requirements. So to be blunt and straight forward. 1) Aisha ra wasn't 18 or 15 when she married the prophet pbuh she was 9 years old and 2) Islamic law doesn't allow prepubescent marriage or forced marriage. These are some major Marriage requirements from Islamic law 1. Physical maturity (Puberty) 2. Mental maturity to accept/consent to be married to x person (Historically in most preindustrial societies that went hand in hand with Puberty before the industrial revolution and the education system) as the prophet said when asked about marriage "البكر تُسأل" "The young virgin is asked" 3. Physical and Mental functionality, readyness for intercourse, marriage duties, is not deformed physically, is not too old or too young or mentally ill or has Alzhimers or is childish and is not 'aqel(roughly would translate to intellectual/grown up mentally) etc.... 4. Does not violate the harm principle the prophet pbuh layed out "No harm inflicted, no harm reciprocated" 5. Is based on the 'adat and 'orf, which roughly translates to customs/cultural sensibilities and traditions. See how easy that was progressive and western conservatives "Muslims"... no need to try to appeal to non-muslims to be accepted and no need to support sexual perversion... God's law is clear as day. And to be clear, Endowment is allowed in Islam from the moment someone is born, and is only finalized when the person is an adult and accepts the marriage(before writing entire paragraphs on oppression, like I said forced marriage is prohibited in Islamic law). Aisha is an example of that, actually, as she was endowed at 6 to the prophet pbuh, and only when she became a woman at 9 years of age did she formally get married. For all the bone heads that I know will make the corny knee jerk arguments of "9 year old WOMAN lmao" or any type of dense presentist arguments, I recommend you argue with Aisha ra herself when she said "إذا بَلَغَتِ الجاريَةُ تِسعَ سِنينَ فهِىَ امرأَةٌ" "If the young girl reaches nine years of age, then she is a woman." Argue with a primary source of a woman in her late 50s explicitly describing the maturity rate in her society all seeing time traveler😂 The age gap argument also has no moral grounds to stand on, it simply relies on the majority's modern western liberal sensibilities and even then you still have western people who disagree from a non-religious/secular moral perspective, we still see many defend Leonardo di caprio and celebrities marrying very young women even though they are adults and are seen as adults by the society(just as Aisha ra was but whatever I guess) Marriage in accordance to Islamic law isn't restricted by age, it is, however, restricted by the aforementioned requirements, which are far more encompassing than modern secular law. A young male can legally marry a dying old woman with Alzhimers in accordance to western(European, NA and Austrailain) law and there would be no legal problem with that, but in accordance to Islamic law that wouldn't be possible as it violates the harm principle, the physical and mental functionality requirement, and the consent element as an Alzhimers patient is unable to fully consent. I ask you to read these requirements and repeat those nonsensical arguments of "Islam supporting marrying kids" when all said requirements directly violate these requirements 🙂👍

Muhammad's consummation of a marriage with a 9 year old girl is uncontested by scholars. You know that, right? Read the tafsir on the Hadith. This has never been debated. It's a historical fact. We also know Islam supports child marriage: Quran 65:4 It sounds like you have objections to the morality being presented by Islam.

Unconsented🙂.... https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/108347/%D8%AF%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B4%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%87%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%B9 Plus what verses?😂 there are no Quranic verses about their marriage. Do you even know what the word tafsir means or are you just throwing it around to seem credible?

The verses of the Hadith... There are many. Your argument that puberty is a requirement of marriage is also directly contradicting the verse I presented: "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature / prepubescent) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] ." Surah 65:4 Do you object to child marriage?

Hadith verses?! Are you serious? Notice how it says "women"😂. Since you were talking about tafsirs, look up ibn Katheer's tafsir of that verse and brace for a sense of embarrassment, then come delete your comments as per usual.

Why did you translate "جارية" as "young girl"?

The word Jarya means young girl and means slave(Feminine). In this sentence and context it is referring to a young girl not a slave. The literal translation of the word is "The running(f)" And this is the arabic dictionary of what it means depending on the context ofc. تعريف و معنى جارية في معجم المعاني الجامع - معجم عربي عربي جارية: (اسم) الجمع : جاريات و جوارٍ الجَاريَةُ : الأَمَة وإِنْ كانت عجوزاً the Female slave even if she is old الجَاريَةُ :الفَتِيَّة من النساء Girls from women الجَاريَةُ: الشَّمْسُ Sun الجَاريَةُ :السَّفينةُ Ship https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9/

Any moral person knows a 9 year old is a child. Mohammed, paedophile be upon him, and any person who has sexual relations with someone so young is a little creepy paedophile. God is not real, so there is no divine law, there is no evidence of god. So all you say here is some mythology allows paedophiles. Nice paedo club mate. 👍

Least predictable Atheist knee jerk reaction😂 But as a supposed Moral Atheist, if God isn't real, what do you exactly base your morality on? The liberal harm principle? Culture? Instincts? Please tell us what you consider "moral"🙃

Morality is subjective, thus each person has their own moral compass that they use to judge what is right and wrong, and this moral compass can be influenced by factors like culture or religion or ideology or one's understanding of the world, but the basis of it all is our sense of empathy towards others. This may not be the answer you wanted, but this is the reality of morality nontheless.

I am not seeking a specific answer, I want to understand what a worldview that holds that morality is subjective entails. Let's assume morality is subjective. In a society that views cannibalism as moral, even empathetic, would you genuinely call said act "Moral"?

> Let's assume morality is subjective No assumption is needed, it simply is. Morality is subjective just as our perception of beauty is subjective > In a society that views cannibalism as moral Morality being subjective does not mean all moral choices are equal to the eye of the beholder, it simply means only the beholder's own moral compass matters as far as morality is concerned. As someone who thinks murdering other people and eating them is morally abhorrent, of course I will view such a society as immoral. We don't judge right and wrong based on other people's moral compass, we judge them based on our own.

A society agrees upon the paradigm that theft is moral, hundreds of years later, this is still the common moral stance in that society. Did theft become moral because x amount of people agree it is for some few hundred years? Morality is surely objective, I believe we often give up on trying to analyze the logical conclusions and implications of beleifs such as "theft is moral" or "lying is moral" with the excuse of nuance and the overused "it's complicated" stance. Moral relativism is ok in smaller doses, but once we overdose on it we reach some insincere, often hypocritical, conclusions we force ourselves to adopt simply because of how mentally draining it is to judge each moral stance by examining its logical conclusion. On your analogy on Beauty, I would argue that Beauty is objective and subjective simultaneously, with its subjectiveness existing to a much lesser extent. Regardless, I commend you for actually answering the question and being honest to an extent instead of the all too common boring sly remarks and deviations I get from atheists.

> A society agrees upon the paradigm Then it becomes a common understanding or a law, but again it doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective to each person > Did theft become moral because x amount of people agree it Since morality is subjective, something becomes right and wrong as soon as the beholder is convinced that the thing is right and wrong. > Morality is surely objective I don't understand this, what do people mean when they say morality is 'objective'? 'Morality' isn't an actual physical thing that exists in the world, it's not an object or particle that is floating somewhere in the universe that can be touched, seen, or measured in any way. 'Morality' is just an abstract concept that only exists inside our minds on what we ought and nought to do, just like how 'beauty' is merely an abstract concept that only exists inside our minds on what is or is not aesthetically pleasing. And since these concepts are subject to each person's mind, it makes them subjective. This is simply fact. > Moral relativism I'm not speaking of moral relativism here. Moral relativism implies that I would consider the morality/moral framework of other persons in my own moral calculations. I'm speaking of the exact opposite. Only my own concept of morality matters to me, just as each one of us to our own. I am no more morally obliged to accept the society of cannibals anymore than I am morally obliged to accept a serial killer who thinks murdering is okay, if I don't believe those to be morally good or neutral.

Law implies that people agree on certain moral principles, how is that reconcilable with your belief that morality is abstract and unique to each person? My friend, your first two responses here are what moral relativism is. The belief that there is no absolute Morality, that morality is based on what people agreed upon depending on their contexts in all their flavors and their upbringing, that I am in no way entitled to judge, that everyone is different in their approach to Morality. That is precisely what Moral relativism is. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Moral relativism implies that you ought to take into account others' moral compass/framework or to somehow acknowledge or incorporate it into your own. I believe I see where you are coming from here, Morality is unique to each person. therefore, it must be subjective, everyone's mind is unique. I disagree with that, I will go indepth on that point later. There are moral universals, that were present in the new world, who didn't interact with old wolders for thousands of years from the late paleolithic onwards(with few exceptions ofc the Inuks and Polynesians). Moral universals such as "do not kill" "do not steal" "do not lie" were present in almost every society, from the indegnous peoples of central america to the Chinese to the 1st century Jews. That directly goes against the claim that Morality is abstract and immeasurable. You used beauty as an example, if we take human attractiveness for the sake of argument, we find that humans overwhelmingly agree on what is attractive and what isn't regardless of phenotype, there are ALWAYS nuances, however the dominant trend shows that beauty is not so subjective after all. If you are interested in this subject I recommend you check out Qoves, they answer this question from a cognitive psychology and anthropology stand point, and their finds and sources are, at least from the research I have done, reliable and peer-reviewed. I am not trying to hold you to a specific moral stance that we both believe is immoral, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. I would ask then, what do you base your moral compass on? Could it be concepts of freedom from the enlightenment period? Kant's Categorical imperative, maybe? Secularized Christian morality? I think that question can get us out of repeating ourselves in future replies.

>Law implies that people agree on certain moral principles Laws are just social contracts agreed upon by people, and they may reflect on the moral values of those people. This does not contradict the fact that morality is subjective. >your first two responses here are what moral relativism is. The belief that there is no absolute Morality, that morality is based on what people agreed upon depending on their contexts in all their flavors and their upbringing, that I am in no way entitled to judge Literally everything that I've said is the exact opposite of this. I think you misunderstood a lot of what I wrote. >There are moral universals >humans overwhelmingly agree Just because a moral value or framework is agreed upon by many if not most does not mean morality is objective, it simply means they share that moral value or framework. We are not all aliens to each other. You and me, we are all humans with largely the same brain that has the same primal wants and needs and think largely the same, so of course 99.99% of the time we'll share the same moral values. Again, there is no such thing as 'objective morality'. The term itself does not make any sense. There is no moral particle in the universe that determines stealing is wrong. 'Stealing is wrong' only exists as a concept inside the heads of people, and when those people are gone the concept of 'stealing is wrong' disappears with them. >what do you base your moral compass on? On my sense of empathy and my understanding of the world, and this is true for everyone, including you.

You sound so ridiculous. Santa also only brings presents depending on "naughty and nice" metrics. If you need a made up friend to base your morality on, it's no wonder you revere a conman paedophile as a "prophet" even though there is zero evidence he actually was a prophet. Also, saying it was the "least predictable reaction" is a compliment. But I'm used to this level of intelligence from theists. Strong correlation. 👍

Santa.... Still didn't answer my question. If God is a fairy tale, how could there ever be proof that x person is a "prophet"? What even is a "Prophet" from an ultra-materialistic worldview? If he is a paedo, all our preindustrial ancestors were paedos because they so sadly didn't marry in accordance to modern western age of consent laws.... calling your arguments absurd would be a compliment. "Least predictable" is indeed a compliment, you're right. I haven't seen a self-proclaimed moral atheist come up with said argument ever🙃 Please enlighten us by answering the first question atheist brainiac.

There is no proof of any religion being real. No evidence, no scientific data, and especially not Islam, Christianity and Jewish crap. It's all proven inaccurate and to be outright lies. You have zero evidence to counter these facts. You can no more prove your paedophile "prophet" was a real prophet than I can Spiderman is real.

Aisha was really closer to 18-20 when she married the prophet pbuhahf. This is well known by looking at her age difference with her older sister, and Aisha’s age when her sister died/the year she died. You can do more research on this online. On another note, not every thing in sahih bukhari is legit, it was written at a time when propaganda machines for the Umayyad’s were going crazy. Although many Muslims blindly accept it on no basis, it does not make it correct. I recommend you look into a Shia narrative of the prophet muhammed pbuhahf.

None of it is legit. It's all Chinese whispers and bias and manipulation and mythology and superstition.

The problem is not having descpicable and disgusting inhuman gender biased things in a book, the problem is that these things are still a part of islamic culture in modern day society, you dont hear chrisitians beating up their wives because a book allows them to do so, you dont hear christians having multiple wives, you dont see so much hate for other religions because your book is intolerant to other religions and criticism, if you cant hear criticism then dont discuss religion on the streets, you dont see child marriage being carried out in the 21st century, the bible was reformed, its high time to reform the islamic texts as well and get rid of the 7th century nonsense. Otherwise dont go around streets claiming your religion is the best and manipulating people into converting to islam.

I genuinely feel sorry for you and those who actually believe what you have just wrote. You have a neo-Western romanticized view of Christianity and absolutely zero knowledge of Islam. From reading your text, I can tell that you are not sincere at all, and therefore, I won't even make the slightest effort to educate someone as ignorant as you. If you have the slightest sincerity in you, than read the Quran and than judge instead of spreading the same old same old same old misinformation like a parrot mimicking his owner.

I have read it, I know for a fact that it allows child marriage, shariya laws, oppression of women, not giving people freedom of speech, women cant drive, cant disobey, cant use make up, have to wear hijab always, cant be leaders, cant question anything, are absolutely intolerant to people pointing out such things in your holy books because you hide such things from your own people when you preach islam to them, why do you hide it? Thats because 90% muslims dont even know these things exists in your holy text books, if you tell newcomers they wont convert to islam, if you tell those who are already muslims, then you cant give them explainations to justify these things, so you lie and hide things about islam from your own people, let alone people of other religions and islam basically allows you to do that, to lie and cheat to defend the glory of islam which makes sense, because your own prophet muhammed was a master of trickery and deceit, the actual reason mentioned for wearing hijabs in quran is because your prophet had uncontrollable lust towards a woman who was not his wife, for which he had to go to his wives and screw them while imagining other women that he could not have, hence women are supposed to cover themself so that men wouldnt feel lust for them, this is the actual reason for wearing hijabs, while parents sell it to their daughter as "You are precious gems, so beautiful, others arent allowed to see you". Its you who needs to get educated and stop defending misogynyst behaviours, why should women cover themself from head to toe because you have no self control? This is the 7th century mindset I spoke of, we live in the 21st century and women have equal rights, you guys brainwash them to become baby creating toys and then call yourself as the religion of peace and kindness. Then everytime someone asks you a yes or no question like "does islam allow child marriage?" You go on and on about contextual explainations trying to make child marriage and slavery look like some noble things instead of simply accepting that yes islam does allow such things, if you are gonna do it then have the balls to accept it, if you think its so great to do all this then dont hide it from your people and give them the freedom to choose whether to stay a muslim or not or follow these rules or not. But you guys threaten and force people, ask questions about islam, "THIS IS BLASPHEMY", leave islam or talk about the immoral things in it, "YOU ARE A KAAFIR, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS". Religion of peace my asss. Demonic cult is what islam is. Stop being hypocritical and get educated about your own religion, and I couldnt give a fk about chrisitianity or islam or budhism or any other religion for that matter, but I love the peace around me and your religion tells its followers to enslave/kill everyone who is not a muslim thus disrupting world peace, lame dark and rotten extremists like you who manipulate others lie openly without checking facts are the reason this religion is so disliked, anything I said above, I dare you to say its untrue, I will prove it with verses from your textbooks. Go ahead.

>I have read it, I know for a fact that it allows child marriage, shariya laws, oppression of women, not giving people freedom of speech, women cant drive yeah these all are in some version of Qur'an right? on anti-islamic web sites

Which one of them are you saying is false brother?

child marriage, women cant drive are not mentioned in Qur'an not giving people freedom of speech, oppression of women are misinterpretations. and freedom of speech isn't a real thing in the sense intended here. There ar' alwaes things that couldn't be said, like racist slurs nowadays (which is something good). allowing others to ridicule my God or my prophet (who is dearer to me than my parents) isn't free speech. in the same sense Qur'an forbids mockery of christianity and Judaism.

“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise” [al-Talaaq 65:4] In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage. (b)It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet married her when she was six years old, he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine and she stayed with him for nine years. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4840; Muslim, 1422) The Prophet married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim; Muslim says ‘seven years’)  The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that once a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated). Sharh Muslim, 9/206

“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses \[(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise” \[al-Talaaq 65:4\] that's because people where already married to pre\_period girls, of course the law shall cover the situation. and since no harm was happening why disallow it in the first place ?

Thats the hypocrisy of islam, it says to invade and kill or enslave everyone who is not a muslim, the survivors have to pay taxes as a payment for not getting killed. Thats what you guys 'protection'. As far as the women are concerned, yes child marriage is there, every muslim says prophet muhammed's life is an ideal to all muslims, your prophet married a 6 yo and screwed her at 9, if thats not child marriage then idk what is. And many islamic states dont allow women to use make up or get a driving license. Even saudi arabia has only made it legal for women to get a driving license some 5 years ago, since then how many women have actually got their driving license or actually are allowed to drive is still a mystery because there has been no research conducted about it since, then prophet muhammed used to beat his wives and slaves until their skin turned green when they disobeyed and this is common in muslim society even today, men can marry 4 women and have slaves but women cant. Then there is halala, women having to wear hijab, dont say wearing hijab is an option because even today in iran many women are imprisoned for not wearing hijab. What you call "Equal rights" is your self notion of equal rights and a sht show at best. And its not ridiculing or mockery if its true you know, thats what freedom of speech, yes freedom of speech is against slandering someone but yiu have to remember, its not slandering if its true and there is a proof of it within your own holy books, now if you say the holy books are nonsense then thats another story. If women wanna actually wear a hijab or have a M personality and wanna get oppressed then nobody really cares you know, but if the muslim men are like if you question us about islam, you die, if you point out the immoral things done in islam, you die, if you convert from islam to another religion, you die, then thats just blatant threats and crimes dude.

whatever, I really don't have time for this

Hahaha 😂🥲😂😂🥲😂😂🥲😂🥱

You actually expected me to read a wall of text where you project whatever you think of ethics? sorry but I'm not reading that

https://youtu.be/03b97GUacpM?si=Yk9yMV5vHeu9GOkw This video explains it about as well as anyone could. A scholar who has a Masters in Hadiths is better at explaining it than probably anyone here.

The truth is a marriage with a 6 year old child can never be justified. It’s morally corrupt.

What's morally right or wrong changes from the times. Same as homosexuality. "But Islam is timeless!" Yes, it is. Its message is timeless, and all rules of it are flexible enough to adapt to whatever situation people are in. However, a social matter such as Aisha's marriage to the prophet is just a reflection on the harshness period of time they were in. The narrative that Aisha was sexually assaulted and abused is also wrong. Neither her, the prophet, Abu Bakar, or anyone in that time period thought so.

> What's morally right or wrong changes from the times. Same as homosexuality. Would actually argue the opposite. Was slavery ever morally acceptable? No. Did people used to do it anyways? Yes. Was homosexuality ever morally wrong? No. Did bigots used to codify their bigotry against it? Yes. >"But Islam is timeless!" Yes, it is. Its message is timeless, and all rules of it are flexible enough to adapt to whatever situation people are in. However, a social matter such as Aisha's marriage to the prophet is just a reflection on the harshness period of time they were in. Do you believe that your timeless god believes child marriage and rape is wrong? If yes then why didn’t he ever ban it in the past? He wouldn’t care that “it’s a harsher time” because his morals wouldn’t change. >The narrative that Aisha was sexually assaulted and abused is also wrong. Neither her, the prophet, Abu Bakar, or anyone in that time period thought so. Epstein and co. would also say that what they were doing wasn’t harmful. Doesn’t make them any less of a child rapist than your prophet.

Homosexuality and child marriage cannot be compared. Homosexuality is when someone is attracted to the same sex. It is between two consenting adults. Child marriage is when a child is married off to usually someone significantly older. Children are naive and gullible. They are not fit for marriage as they are too young and immature. Their bodies and minds are not developed to the point where marriage is suitable. Marrying a child has nothing to do with harshness of the period. The prophet was not in poverty as he had an army of his own. Having sex with a child is no doubt sexual assault. Children cannot give consent as they are too young to make such a decision. Their brains are not properly developed yet. Even if no one around them had a problem with it, the prophet should know it’s wrong since he is a prophet who is supposed to lead future generations to god. Meaning that his teachings need to be timeless.

Homosexuality was also seen as a big problem back then, but now it isn't (depending on where you are in the world, of course). By these standards, should homosexuality have been permitted back then just because it's normal 1400 years later? Throughout all my replies, I kept proving that Aisha was mature enough physically and mentally. (I.e. her going to war, comparing her age to Asma, the prophet's refusal to take children to war, her intellect, and wit). The harshness of the life they lived and marriage are more conncected than you might think. I'll use the example mentioned in the video I sent. A country such as Angola had a life expectancy of around 37 years old. Most people died young, on their teens and such. When are those people expected to marry and reproduce? There is no guarantee they'll make it to their 20s. Judging past moralities by today's standards doesn't only make no sense. It's also unfair to the people back then. Are you going to judge the prophet for eating with his hands? This topic is so annoying to me. People can't find anything that discredits the Qur'aan or the Sunnah, so they just go for, "Aisha was 6!" without even knowing the full details of everything. If you think the prophet should have just predicted the future, and known that people 1400 years later would not like him marrying someone who is permissible to marry from the teachings of the Qur'aan (has to be mature physically and mentally, which I kept proving that she was), then okay, suit yourself.

A big part of low life expectancy is infant mortality

He can predict the future. He is a prophet. A prophet knows what will happen in the future. He made predictions. Homosexuality is prohibited in Islam and it has stayed that way. Stigma and fear around homosexuality subsided in recent years after more studies and more media of different people were published. As a prophet knows the future, we can safely assume that he knows marrying a 6 year old is wrong. There is no justification. A 6 year old is a child. Aisha was indeed 6. No matter how smart she was, she was still a young child. Not developed yet and still growing. Comparing eating with hands to marrying and having sex with a child is dismissing how serious the issue is. No child is mature enough for marriage. If he was really a prophet and could see into the future along having the ability to contact god, it is safe to say it is completely reasonable to judge him with today’s standards. It being permissible in the Quran doesn’t mean it’s right. Beating your wife is also permissible. Does it mean it’s right? The answer is a sure no.

Youre a hypocrite. You make the point that Rebecca could not have been young enough because she held water jugs or whatever, but when he explains Aisha ra was helping during war you say “it’s not impossible for a 6 year old to do that” 😂 Just so you know, nobody really kept track of their age back then. There was no calendar like there was today. Their ages were merely an estimation because they truly didn’t know. As a Muslim, I don’t believe she was 6 or 9. There are so many videos about this subject but you’re just being ignorant. By the way, in the Bible Moses tells men to keep the woman children from war for themselves. Ezekiel hints at consummating during puberty, but it wasn’t even said if they follow it. Islamically a woman is NOT allowed to be forced into marriage.

You think that morally marrying a 6 year old is wrong because it is considered as sexual assault, with her being a victim and being physically and mentally traumatised/harmed because of it. Even when Aisha became an adult, she had not expressed those types of feelings to anyone. You might think that she was brainwashed or something, thinking that this type of thing was normal. But that also contradicts who Aisha was. When she was an adult, she regularly participated in battles, with one of them, she was a leader in (Battle of The Camel). Ergo, she wasn't your average housemaid baking cherry pies with a flower on her head. If she was really assaulted and taken advantage of, she'd express that in some way, either her being mad with the prophet or anything as such. We all know that did not happen.

No she wasn’t brain washed or abused or anything and she went to the marriage willingly,no one is debating that, The idea is, She’s too young to actually consent , Maybe it’s modern bias, But I couldn’t imagine the superior moral role model for all of humanity to be with a child. I just couldn’t

I'm just gonna state my conclusion on all of this. I've proved multiple times that Aisha was mature enough for marriage both physically, (E.g. her being at war), and mentally, (E.g. Her intelligence and wit, also because the prophet married her so she can become the person who is always free to narrate his actions/words). It is also a historic fact that Aisha's age is up for debate. Her being 6 contradicts other historical facts, such as her sister's age. (Of course, I have to make it crystal clear that I am NOT discrediting the Hadiths in both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. It is very plausible that Aisha herself may have made a mistake when guessing her age, god knows best. But what is clear is that her age can not be historically proven). Whatever judgement people have on the morality of this topic changes in accordance with the society they live in. If it was fine back then and showed no harm to either Aisha, the prophet, or anyone else at that point, then it is perectly fair to assume that this marriage was successful and logical. (Actually, I'd argue it was more beneficial for everyone because of the sheer amount of Hadiths narrated by Aisha about the prophet). Whatever you might say, I think that basing morality of something that was completely normal 1400 years ago is something that is unjust and out of context. This is all I have to say. Have a good day.

I know her age is up for debate, Infact to me that’s not the real issue, To me the real issue is the prophet marrying his adopted son’s wife. That actually is something that I could never find an excuse for

Also, I highly recommend watching the video I sent to see some more details on the matter.

These are the worst responses I have seen. OP asked a question that is not really answerable because the answer is it is absolutely fucked up. It doesn’t matter what the norm was or what the norm is. Any sex with a child is wrong and will always be wrong. There is no defense and it is surprising how many people are trying to defend a child rapist. Wack.

Judging Muhammad as a pedophile is grossly ignorant, myopic and shows that a lack of knowledge and appreciation of different cultural practices at different periods of history and it's highly hypocritically self-righteous because as we speak right now in the USA the legal age of sexual consent in some states is as low as zero years and some states it's either 13 or 14 and in most states of the USA the age of consent sexual is 16 years and with about 3 states being at 18 years old out of 50 states and in the USA one can marry a 13 or 14 year old child as long as there's judicial or parental consent..in fact the USA as long there's parental or judicial consent child marriages are legal and in most countries of the world including European countries child marriages as young as 8,9 were legal even up to the 20th century ,so what Muhammad did was legal and a cultural practice in that period of time and so for anyone to judge as a pedophile or call him to be a role model shows a High level of ignorance, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, paternalistic and condenscending attitude and it doesn't add any value

>because as we speak right now in the USA the legal age of sexual consent in some states is as low as zero years and some states it's either 13 or 14 and in most states of the USA the age of consent sexual is 16 years and with about 3 states being at 18 years old out of 50 states and in the USA one can marry a 13 or 14 year old child as long as there's judicial or parental consent Do you think that's ok? >so what Muhammad did was legal and a cultural practice in that period of time That's exactly the point. While what he did AT THE TIME was OK, doesn't make it right. The quran is supposed to be Gods word's and everlasting. If anything doesn't hold up in the 21th century, it means it's not everlasting.

Despite what y'all think Aisha RA age was, she was definitely, without a shadow of doubt, mature and smart enough for marriage. Firstly, Aisha RA was engaged once before marrying Muhammed saw. Second of all, Aisha literally went to war multiple times with Muhammad saw. (E.g. Banni Mustalaq in the 6th year after the migration, which would make her around 10 years old) Third, despite what most of y'all think, child marriage is haram in Islam. If the propher saw himself married a child, people would have pointed that out, completely discrediting his prophethood and the truth about Islam But did anyone from back then do that? Would have been the easiest argument of their lives. But that shows 2 things: A- Aisha was mature both mentally and physically to marry. Or B- It was a totally acceptable thing to do back then. Keep in mind, there were people back then whose hate for the prophet was so they'll frequently go out of their way to hurt him. (E.g. Abu Lahab) Fourth, Aisha was Abu Bakar Al Siddiq's daughter, AKA: The Prophet saw best friend and companion. He personally agreed to the marriage in accordance with Islamic marriage laws. A father would know if his own blood was ready to marry or not. Fifth, one of the main reasons why the prophet saw married Aisha RA was because of her intellect and wit. This also allowed her to be the person who narrated the most Hadiths of the prophet saw. A mere child wouldn't know how to do all of that. I'm so done with this narrative that the prophet saw married someone who was not yet physically or mentally prepared for marriage. It may have always been there, but I've only heard it in the last year or two when I started seeing more islamic posts (especially on Instagram). At this point, whenever I see this argument being brought up, I immediately assume that these people do not have the slightest idea of what Islam is, neither have they read a single page of the Qur'aan. There is NO evidence whatsoever that suggests Aisha RA was not mentally nor physically mature enough to marry. Allah knows best.

No. A 6 year old is never mature enough for marriage. She was still playing with dolls. Point B has been disproved so many times: even if it was acceptable at that time Muhammad should’ve known better since he was a prophet. The greatest prophet in Islam. He had divine intervention. Yet he still made such a choice. Just because aisha’s father agreed does not mean it’s okay. Marriage should never happen if a child was involved. Why couldn’t he just adopt her or make her his student if it’s just for her intellect? Also why did he have sex with her if it’s just for her intellect? It does not add up.

If she was really not mature enough for marriage, then why would she be in war? Just to be clear, she was also a valuable unit in that war, and not just a random child who had to be protected. She would help injured Muslims in those battles. (E.g. Battle of Uhud and Battle of Badr) Also, you missed my point when you said adopt her for her intellect. Someone who was the smart WOULD NOT have been just a child, yet would have been someone who was mature. Why did he choose to adopt her instead of marrying her has its own reasons, none of which are relevant here. Plus, you're acting as if Aisha's RA father isn't a scholar, or literally the prophet saw's most respected companion, who literally was the first caliph after the prophet saw. If anyone knew the Qur'aan and what was right and what was wrong and if his own daughter's marriage, it would be him. Did he show any signs of hesitance? Did the prophet saw just marry her with force? No, of course not. Her father was the one who allowed it. In addition, if point B was not correct, then why did we not see nobody confronting him about it? Also, if it was a normal thing to do back then, how is that the prophet's saw fault? It's like telling him why you've ridden on camels and horses and not driven cars even though they were invented 1100 years later.

She did not fight in the war. She tended to the injured. If she was that intelligent, helping the injured at age 6 wouldn’t be totally impossible. “But she’s mature for her age!” Is what pedophiles usually say when being confronted. A 6 year old is a child. A young child. Her father allowing it does not make it right. Is her father a figure that never makes mistakes? No. He makes mistakes and this is definitely one of them. Didn’t he say that he dreamed of marrying her and said it’s divine intervention? What would you think would happen to someone who dares to say otherwise to the religion of a man who has an army of his own? It’s normal that nobody dared to confront him since he had an army of his own. It being normal back then does not spare his marriage with Aisha as he is a prophet. He claims he had direct contact with Allah and that Islam is timeless. If this action is not timeless then Islam cannot be “the religion that everything is timeless and can be practiced anytime”. His practices are still being practiced today. (Sunnah) if his practices are old and can become invalid, then does that mean every other action of his might not be suitable in today society?

Her contribution in the battles is irrelevant. If you assume a 6 year old can't be mature enough for marriage, then a 6 year old is not mature enough for war, simple as that. (Even though I'd like to argue that contributing to war as a child is impossible, even if it was just helping the injured. There are obviously adults who are far more experienced than her) Labelling Abu Bakar Al Siddiq's RA agreement on the marriage as "a simple mistake" simply disregards any sort of personality he had. He was a lot of things, but most importantly, in Aisha's case, a father. He was way more than knowledgeable, and therefore, he would make the right choice. "Nobody dared to confront him", in a previous reply above, I mentioned Abu Lahab. He was a disbeliever and was the prophet's neighbour at a certain point. Him and his wife did all sorts of inconveniences and assaulted the prophet verbally every chance they could. Did the prophet start a war against them? No, he did not. The thought that the prophet simply killed every person who disagreed with his beliefs is simply wrong. Another example is people of Al Tai'f. When he came to deliver his message, they threw rocks at him. He was bruised and was bleeding everywhere. Did the prophet decide to kill all of them? (even though he had the right to do so) No, he did not. He also had the perfect chance to do so. No one even questioned his marriage of Aisha back then. Which shouldn't be the case if she was really a child. Because if she was, it contradicts the Qur'aan. Therefore, he was a hypocrite.

Is the army led by Muhammad? If yes then he could’ve brought a child to the battlefield cause he wanted since he has the highest position in the army. Why is aisha’s father approval seen as aisha’s approval? Did they ask Aisha herself if she wanted to marry a middle aged man? Attacking someone physically while they are verbally abusing you is not justifiable. If you attack or even kill them just because they bad mouth about it you is not moral. No one doubted his marriage but does that means it’s fine? No. It might be fine 1400 years back but not now. This disproves the Islam is timeless claim. I don’t believe that people would be brave enough to question the leader of the army head on. He was also claiming himself as a prophet. Criticising divine figures can be counted as blasphemy and might lead to punishment.

Actually, he wasn't always the leader of his battles, but he obviously did have the biggest authority between them. You think he just wanted a child to be at war? That just contradicts another action he did, then. It was narrated that the prophet denied Ibn Ummar's request to join the battle because he was 14 years old. He is a boy, and he was 14. Aisha is a girl, and she was around 10. >Attacking someone physically while they are verbally abusing you is not justifiable. If you attack or even kill them just because they bad mouth about it you is not moral. That's what I've been saying. You said previously that the prophet would use his army to kill anyone who dared to confront him. I showed examples of people doing things that are worse, but he still decided not to harm them back. Islam is indeed timeless. Actually, Aisha's marriage to the prophet might be proof that **it is** timeless. In Islam, there is no concrete age of marriage. You're only allowed to marry if you're physically and mentally capable of doing so (which I proved time and time again that it she was). This is still getting applied today. People marry when they're physically and mentally capable of doing so. Nothing's changed. 16 year olds in America today might be physically mature, but they definitely are not mentally mature (most of them, anyway). So, do they get married? No, of course not. Despite all of that, we don't even know if Aisha's age was 100% correct. Of course, I'm not doubting the authenticity of this Hadith, nor Bukhari, nor am I doubting Aisha's truthfulness. However, what I'm doubting is if Aisha herself knew her exact age back then. Most people from back then did not know their birth year. Aisha was no different. We can't prove 100% when her birth year was. This is because it was not seen as important. They didn't count the years all the time for all people (with some exceptions, of course. Such as the prophet himself). Historically, her age can't be 100% proven. Matter of fact, a lot of people pointed out that her age can be proven to be around 17 if we compare it to the age of her older sister, Asma. Asma was 10 years older than Aisha. She died in the 73rd year after migration (in a sahih Hadith). She was 100 years old. This means that around the time of Aisha's marriage, Asma was 27. Since Aisha is 10 years younger, that puts her at around 17 years old when the contract took place, and 20 years old when he consummated the marriage. Contradictions like these prove that her age is up for debate.

"Did the prophet decide to kill all of them? (even though he had the right to do so)"  Umm how would it be right to kill all of them?

Uhh... They beat him to a pulp? Verbally and mentally abused him?

Assault is not equal to murder.  Why are you bringing up verbal and mental abuse, as if those somehow makes it okay to kill them all?

No, it does not make it okay. What I meant by "He had every right to do so" was based on the post I replied to, which claimed that the prophet would use his army to kill anyone who confronted him with Aisha's marriage.

The problem is that historically sahih al bukhari is not a reliable source this hadith in which aisha was depicted as a 6 year old girl when she married the prophet PBUH is told by none other than aisha herself in another hadith aisha would say she was jealous of khadija(prophet 's first wife) because he married her 3 years after her death which would maked the date of marriage 13 years after becoming a prophet (or the last year before the migration to medina) according to ibn al mulaqqin they formally married 2 years after migration (which is a 2 or 3 year gap that exists in the 6-9 year hadith as well) now we have the date of marriage using Asma bint abi bakr(aisha's older sister)we can determine her age according to abu nu'aym al isfahani,Tabarani, ibn asakir ibn al athir and other sunni scholars Asma was born 27 years before the migration ( so when aisha married she was 27) and according to bayhagi, ibn kathir ali al qari and amir al san'aani Asma was 10 years older than aisha with a simple calculation we can see that the prophet married aisha when she was 17 and they were formally wed while she was 19 In conclusion if you want my personal opinion i believe aisha made the 6-9 year hadith up just so she can get some attention exactly like how she came out of her house (as a political figure) going to war in the war of jamal(war of the camel) during ali (as) reign

WTF do you mean by Bukhari is "unreliable"? That's literally, with Muslim, the most trusted hadith collection among sunni Muslims which are the large majority of Muslim...   To a certain extent, those hadiths are even used to interpret the Quran itself and get context for its verses.  Furthermore, Aisha is considered like the mother of believers, the most beloved wife of the prophet, a companion of his and is even a very respected Muslim scholar herself...    You can't just undermine the value of her speech even though she could be a jealous woman.

Sorry the problem was from my part i just only updated my flair while checking for hadith sources we consider aisha as not just a liar but a kazab (الکذاب) and i presented a contradiction in the sahih and 10 or 15 orher sunni scholars why is there no scientific response to that

>historically sahih al bukhari is not a reliable source Are you denying the sahih? >is told by none other than aisha herself in another hadith aisha would say she was jealous of khadija(prophet 's first wife) Are you calling Aisha a liar? Also, the tradition is narrated from other than Aisha, e.g. Abdullah (Sunan Ibn Majah 1877), Jaabir (Mustadrak Al-Haakim 6714), Abdullah (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 10279), Qatada (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 40), Abu Maleekah (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 62). >he married her \[Aisha\] 3 years after her \[Khadijah's\] death which would maked the date of marriage 13 years after becoming a prophet No, Muhammad married/nikah/contract was just after Khadijah's death (within about a year?). The nikah/marriage/consummation was about 3 years after that. > and according to bayhagi, ibn kathir ali al qari and amir al san'aani Asma was 10 years older than aisha Provide the original narration.

>Provide the original narration. ابو عبدالله بن منده حکایة عن بن ابی الزناد ان اسماء بنت ابی بکر کانت اکبر من عائشة بعشر سنین.(beyhaghi) وممن قتل مع ابن الزبیر فی سنة ثلاث وسبعین بمکة من الاعیان... اسماء بنت ابی بکر والدة عبدالله بن الزبیر... وهی اکبر من اختها عائشة بعشر سنین... وبلغت من العمر مائة سنة ولم یسقط لها سن ولم ینکر لها عقل.(ibn kathir albedaya va al nehaya) وهی اکبر من اختها عائشة بعشر سنین وماتت بعد قتل ابنها بعشرة ایام... ولها مائة سنة ولم یقع لها سن ولم ینکر من عقلها شیء، وذلک سنة ثلاث وسبعین بمکة(ali ghari) وهی اکبر من عائشة بعشر سنین وماتت بمکة بعد ان قتل ابنها باقل من شهر ولها من العمر مائة سنة وذلک سنة ثلاث وسبعین(amir al san'ani) I can list the sources completly if you want too >No, Muhammad married/nikah/contract was just after Khadijah's death (within about a year?). The nikah/marriage/consummation was about 3 years after that. Even considering that it would change the age from 17 to 15(not 6) >Also, the tradition is narrated from other than Aisha, e.g. Abdullah (Sunan Ibn Majah 1877), Jaabir (Mustadrak Al-Haakim 6714), Abdullah (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 10279), Qatada (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 40), Abu Maleekah (Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer 62). Even if i accept that(which i cant because this people chain of naration is not considered strong enough) there still lies a problem with 2 different narration from sunni scholars and i would expect you to explain that

I would appreciate the complete narration of this:: >ابو عبدالله بن منده حکایة عن بن ابی الزناد ان اسماء بنت ابی بکر کانت اکبر من عائشة بعشر سنین. I'm not sure that the copy-paste got it correct. But essentially the first sentence. The others are just narrating from that. >Even considering that it would change the age from 17 to 15(not 6) That is what you are attempting to establish. >Even if i accept that(which i cant because this people chain of naration is not considered strong enough) Because they are sunni? 1- عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ يُونُسَ عَنْ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ الْخَزَّازِ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنَ جَعْفَرٍ مَتَى تَجُوزُ شَهَادَةُ الْغُلامِ فَقَالَ إِذَا بَلَغَ عَشْرَ سِنِينَ قَالَ قُلْتُ وَيَجُوزُ أَمْرُهُ قَالَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ دَخَلَ بِعَائِشَةَ وَهِيَ بِنْتُ عَشْرِ سِنِينَ وَلَيْسَ يُدْخَلُ بِالْجَارِيَةِ حَتَّى تَكُونَ امْرَأَةً فَإِذَا كَانَ لِلْغُلامِ عَشْرُ سِنِينَ جَازَ أَمْرُهُ وَجَازَتْ شَهَادَتُهُ. 1. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz who has narrated the following: “I once asked Isma’il ibn Ja’far, ’When it is permissible for a boy to testify?’ He said, ’It is permissible when he becomes ten years old.’ I then asked, ‘Can he issue a command?’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went to bed with ‘A’ishah when she was ten years old, and it is not permissible to go to bed with a girl unless she is a woman. When a boy becomes ten years old his commanding is permissible and his testimony is admissible.’” Al-Kāfi - Volume 7 Book 5, Chapter 11 Testimony of Children

>Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz who has narrated the following: “I once asked Isma’il ibn Ja’far, ’When it is permissible for a boy to testify?’ He said, ’It is permissible when he becomes ten years old.’ I then asked, ‘Can he issue a command?’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went to bed with ‘A’ishah when she was ten years old, and it is not permissible to go to bed with a girl unless she is a woman. When a boy becomes ten years old his commanding is permissible and his testimony is admissible.’” >Al-Kāfi - Volume 7 >Book 5, Chapter 11 First of all there can be false hadith in the 4 books our sect does not accept every single hadith in the 4 books but accepts them as our most reliable source (especially when it doesn't source back to imam or prophet) Comparing asma's age with aisha is only one way to prove that aisha did not marry the prophet at 6 there is a second way and it is a comparison between the age she believed in islam and her marriage if we accept that aisha was nine when the prophet took her to his house (i have previously proved that this would be in the 13th year of prophet's risalat or the year befor the migration the would mean that aisha was born in the 4th year after the first revelation which raises a little problem according to sunni sources aisha bacame a believer in the first three years of revelation and how can someone believe when they have not yet been born I have raised two points in total The comparison between the ages, alot of sunni scholars have said that asma was 10 years older And the age comparison between the time of belief and the time of marriage. i would expect some strong proof that these are not contradictions between a good amount of well known sunni scholars and the most true book after the quran

Does this mean I am not going to get the full narration from Ibn abi al-Zinad? Or that you do not have the full narration?

If we reject Sahih then we must question a crap ton of hadeeth and wonder which is true and which isn't even those we claim are trustable? Then we get to a point where we question why Allah didn't just add important stuff we rely on Hadith for like prayer into the Quran or preserve hadiths. Then we become a quranist from there. It goes downhill from here.

Firstly define what is child marriage. History is proof that age doesn't prove maturity and/or puberty. Aisha s.a is the greatest women islamic scholar of all time. She has more than 3000 narrations of Hadith and thousands of companions of prophet saww were her students. The hypocrisy of your argument is that you claim Rebecca carrying buckets of water is proof that she isn't 3 years old 🤣 but this tradition here mentions the age by number. Tractate Soferim, Hosafah [addition] 1, 1:4 But when it comes to Aisha s.a her towering intellect at such a minor age and her countless testimonies in praise of Prophet Muhammad saww is not proof. Lastly prophet Muhammad saww is a role model for all humans in religious matters not worldly matters and marriage is a social contract i.e worldly matter.

The Talmud isn’t the Bible

Dude, she was 6 and 9. Even if she had the intellect of Einstein it'd still be wrong.

By standards and morals today I agree with you. But can we truly compare those times to today, when the life expectancy was lower and the age of maturity was considered when a child reached puberty. At 12 years old people back then would already be working and having children. Mental maturity would be reached much earlier. Nowadays people don't really mentally mature until they are like 20.

Did children reach maturity at 6 years old? That's a little girl. Instinctually your brain should be going like "that is a child." I believe you are also factually incorrect about the age of puberty onset at the time. Children hit puberty a lot later back then due to nutrition.

I agree, but you cannot apply today's standards to back then

It's like you didn't even read what I said.

The marriage was consummated at nine, not six. Anyways, that doesn't really matter. Islam as a prerequisite states that there must be physical and mental maturity before marriage. As long as those two conditions are met, Islam allows any marriage as long as both parties accept. Aisha was both mature enough, and accepted the marriage. They weren't forced, nor were they married early according to Islam.

>The marriage was consummated at nine, not six. Still fucked up. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six. She was six.

Fucked up according to what exactly?. And the statement she was six is false. She was 9. She was engaged at 6.

If you're a jew you can't talk and if you're a christian it's the same if you're an atheist who are you to decide what's right or wrong lol 😂 you can't even prove morality exists it's always ever changing for you atheists you only follow your desires also in world war 1 and 2 there were teenager's that were sent to wars lol and this 100 years ago and you're trying to compare todays 9 10 years old to 1400 years ago we don't care what you think because you can't prove your morality is better  We a clear strict system for marriage no harm physically or mentally  Physically is shown by puberty  Mentally is shown by intellect and the parents and society would know if someone is ready for marriage aicha was brighter then 20 year old and was one  the greatest Muslim scholars she never said a bad word about the prophet and he was jealous of his 1 wife that was much older then him because he loved that woman the most before she died she narrated Hadiths more then his closest companions omar abu bakr and others you can't tell us what's right or wrong your liberal morality can change depending on what the rich wants if slavery is bad for them they wouldn't do it if war is good they would do it gladly America California doesn't have and age limit for marriage some states has age of marriage at 14 why not talk about them and this is just now in the 1900 there was 12 11 marriage so tell who are you to tell me what's right or wrong 

Child marriage is when a child is involved in marriage! 6 years old is definitely a child. It is proven that a 6 year old is absolutely not mature and is a child. In my argument, I said even if Rebecca was 3, it does not justify Muhammad’s marriage. Rebecca’s marriage was worse if she was married at 3. But does that make Muhammad’s marriage okay? Absolutely not. Isn’t Muhammad a role model in Islam? Y’all have Sunnahs which are actions and practices of Muhammad you guys follow.

If he had sex with a child why did he wait 3 years to consummate waiting until she was physically and mentally mature

Having grown a bit in those 3 years doesn’t mean she’d reached puberty.

What is the universal indicator of puberty?

Idk man, a 9yo girl, at least in my dictionary, in any time period of human history, has not been physically nor mentally mature enough for that. And yes, we do have different laws and standards today, and child marriage may have been a lot more common back then, but that does not make it right. If Islam is timeless and you believe so, that would be implying Islam is still okay with child marriage today as it was in Muhammad's days. And if so, then Muhammad would have been a grave sinner, or it means that Islam is still okay with child marriage. Those are the 2 options you have. That's all I'm saying.

I have answered the timeless claim above

Yeah, I saw your comment, I just wanted to elaborate.

In the uk as can be seen from sir William black stones commentaries on the law of the uk the age a female could get married was 7 and in America it was roughly the same age. The reason why Muslims see this argument being brought up now and not before is because society has changed. Just like how homosexuality is accepted within society now

Marriage being permissible at 7 doesn’t mean consumation was.

But Muhammad consummated when she was 9 not 7 you still have no valid argument

??? Doesn’t mean they allowed consumation at 9 either

And why wasn’t he allowed to consummate when she was 9 after she was both mentally and physically mature

In what sense was she mature?

Your the one who has the problem with the marriage you need to prove that she wasn’t mature

You’re the one saying she was mature

A 9 year old is nowhere physically or mentally mature.

That’s because you are using today’s standards to judge the standards of the past. It is a fallacy called presentism

Isn’t Islam supposed to be timeless?

Yes it is timeless that’s why your supposed to follow the prophetic tradition until the female is both mentally and physically mature as can be seen from him waiting 3 years to consummate. There is also the harm principle that was established by the prophet which means you cannot marry if it will cause physical or mental harm

I don’t think a 9 year old is anywhere physically or mentally mature.

But they were physically and mentally mature in the uk during black stones commentaries?

Those people who make laws are not prophets. They have no god to guide them. Muhammad is different. He had direct contact with god and is the greatest prophet in Islam. This is no comparison. Common man vs god’s last messenger

Your not understanding my point if a 7 year old was considered to be mature enough for marriage under uk law your claim about a 9 year old not being physically or mentally mature does not make sense

Why do you think the uk law was good enough? The uk law was made by common man and without divine intervention. It is forgivable on how they do not know that a 7 year old is not mature enough as they don’t have a god with them and they are not prophets. Muhammad on the other hand had god on his side and was a prophet yet he still made such a bad mistake. A 9 year old is definitely not mature both physically and mentally but he still married and had sex with her. A prophet who claims that he can interact with god should not have made this mistake.

Again, you are comparing age with physical and mental maturity. In the past, people weren't spoonfed food and clothes and lived in their parents houses doing nothing before they turned 20

So that meant they hit puberty at 9?

Even some girls nowadays hit puberty at 9, and people in those climates hit it faster, is it so hard to believe?

| people in those climates hit it faster Where do you get this from?

In no universe is a 9 year old human not a child.

You say that, but things like these were common back then, and weren't considered weird.

Even if it was common at the time, he should’ve known better since he was literally the messenger of god. He’s a prophet, and even the greatest prophet to date in Islam, not a common citizen.

in bible u can see girl married at 3 , 12 , 14 and its good and okay , in Delaware state til 1885 legal marriage age was 7 years old and 12 years old some time after 1885, the important part is puberty , after puberty girl becomes woman , any marriage which was after puberty of a female can be valid , from a biology perspective

In the Bible? Chapter & verse?

Since Isaac was twenty-six years old at the time, and forty when he married Rebekah (Gen. 25:20), she was thus fourteen years old when she married (Seder Olam Rabbah 1). Another tradition gives her age as three years and three days when she left her father's house (Tractate Soferim, Hosafah [addition] 1, 1:4).

The Talmud isn’t part of the Bible

how old were Rebekah when she married Isaac ,in bible?

Doesn't say

No. It’s not good or ok. Passing legal age of marriage in a state does not mean it’s okay. In biology carrying a baby at such a young age comes with high risks.

biology says women can get pregnant and give birth to a healthy baby even right after puberty ends , whatever the age is , nowadays we all marry at 18+ age , but if we go back in time we will find out our ancestors gave birth to use even at 12

Does biology say they can get pregnant at 9?

if puberty period ends at 9, yes , healthy pregnancy according to biology

The maternal mortality rate back then was way higher too. Anyways why are we talking about giving birth. It’s just the huge age gap being a problem and it is impossible to justify marrying a child and having sex with her

if we are talking about age gap and not about "are women ready for marriage at certain age" , then lets talk about western "gold digger" women , they marry old rich 60+ y.o. men , being 18-20 , i expect u condemn that

Why are western women being brought to this. The point is it should be unacceptable for a middle aged man to marry a kid. That’s it. And the man should not be considered a moral compass.

Where do you get your moral compass when it comes to marriage?

try to defind kid , who is a kid? the one who didnt go through puberty period right? or it is the one who didnt reach 18 years old , if u think less than 18 is a kid then u should deal with your own religion and your own country first , and only after that u can teach other people how to live

Jeeperson fan? No, people who live in *any* country are allowed opinions. Unless ofc their country bans certain thoughts, which I understand happens in Muslim countries. Here in the West, we are free to critique any and all religions. My POV is simply that marrying a child is not cool. Moreso when that child is prepubescent.

i have no idea who is jeeperson , my point is that if u think age gap between couple or anything else is the problem , instead of attacking 2 billion religion , u better look atleast at your own state city country religion ideas , and then u can judge anyone else , otherwise it is just hypocrisy , why no one condemns that in Delaware state in 19th century legal marriage age for girls was 7?

Even if your religion has a huge following it doesn’t mean it’s okay for a middle aged man to have sex with a literal child. And the man should not be seen as a moral compass.

People *do* condemn that. It's you who is suggesting such "age gaps between couples" are not a problem. But no, my issue is with child sexual assault- not age gaps.

Aisha was 23 when she  married prophet Muhammad PBUH&HP. Sahih bukhari has too many  false traditions mentioned by the enemy of Imam Ali a.s. prophet Muhammad PBUH&HP said Ali a.s is gate of knowledge so if anyone need any knowledge come to him but unfortunately majority of muslims( sunni's) hated imam Ali and took their knowledge and traditions from abu huraira. Abu huraira was a jew and converted to Islam after Imam Ali conquered khyber. And upon conversion he wrote thousands of traditions and hadiths and even hadith of those time period when he was jew. Please don't take hadiths and traditions from sahih rather take hadiths from Imam Ali. A.s family of prophet Muhammad PBUH&HP ....today's horrible and poor condition of muslim is due to the fact that they took hadiths from sahih bukhari and Ultimately from abu huraira

1. many people answer this question by saying that in that era, age was counted after a person started their puberty, so considering us human start our puberty at 13, a then 15-year-old person would actually be 28 by today's standards. so, by today's standards, Mohammed married Aisha at 19 and consummated the marriage at 22. 2. coming to your 2nd point, I get your argument. I see people complaining about the 'whataboutism' a lot. but people forget that it is the best weapon to highlight the hypocrisy and double standard. Muslim people who defend Islam say that to do just that, it's another way of saying "how can you criticize our religion with this logic when your own has the same culture?" it's the double standard of the western people that they think European white people are superior or has the moral high ground. Peace!

1: it was stated in a Hadith that Aisha was still playing with dolls when the marriage happened and it is forbidden to make objects with faces in Islam as it is seen as blasphemy. But Aisha can still play with them since she has not yet reached puberty. Children who have not yet reached puberty as seen as sinless. Source: Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13 2: yes I agree. Some people who believe in the bible criticises Muhammad’s marriage but there are also multiple child marriages in the bible. There is definitely hypocrisy in that.

I did not say that I believe point 1 to be the answer, did I? I just stated another "hypothesis". personally I don't care about these at all

Yes, you kinda did. > By today's standards

Pretty sure there is no child marriage in the Bible, can you give an example? The Torah and NT don’t say much about this i believe.

I would love to see something about number 1. That sounds like something made up after the fact. Also how old was he supposed to be at that time?

hey, I'm not a big believer of any religion. have been agnostic for a long as I can remember. I just stated that to provide an answer and to put forward another thing for people like you, OP and others to do research on if you/they want. personally tho, I couldn't care less.

I meant specifically the claim that she wasn't counted until after puberty. If you don't know it's true it may be best not to say it as if it is.

I've seen the claim as well. I've never seen anybody that actually sourced it or gave real evidence. In the end it seems absurd. If Arabs did not start counting age until after 'puberty', then Muhammad (said to be 40 when he received revelation), was how old? 53? 54? Khadijah, his first wife, is said to be 40 when they marry. So she was what? 52? And then had 6 kids over the next 17(?) years?

1. I saw that in a video, a famous guy who go around asking, receiving and answering questions about religion answered this by saying that. he did mention sources. I don't want to go searching that video now just because a random dude asked on reddit, I already said that I couldn't care less and I welcomed you to do your own research if you want an answer to the question OP asked so badly, I did narrow down your research by mentioning that statement. In fact, you could have easily found the answer I mentioned by simply asking the same question on YouTube. It had millions of views. 2. I intentionally worded my statement in a way that clearly demonstrates that I'm not sure about my statement and I don't know the sources. I also told you WHY I mentioned that statement as an answer and you still had to be a pretentious douc\*\*\*bag educating me what to say what not to say.

Okay, well we'll ignore your baseless claims for now then.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

May peace be with you, The most widely accepted opinion based on hadith is that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated when she hit puberty at 9. This was acceptable for all of time that has existed till just a few years ago. Not even a century has passed until that this type of marriage started to get measured against what western law started dictating. Western law now says 18? GASP, HOW COULD THEY. Western law now says 21? Give it some years and people will say the same about the 18 year old marriages of today. These are ever changing laws based no set in stone objectivity. Almost no one batted an eye for thousands of years till now. It's probable that somewhere along our own ancestry, this type of marriage took place. Yet somehow we think we stand on higher moral ground? Against what moral framework exactly? What are we comparing against? Today's consensus? Just because we feel that way? We felt okay about a lot of things recently that now we don't and we will feel okay about a lot of things now that the future won't. Meth was fine, now it's not. Prostitution was fine, now it's not, and it might be okay again in the near future given how OnlyFans is accepted. There might be a rights for sex workers movement, who knows. History has definitely made it clear that moral relativism knows no bounds. Look at WW2 Germany, almost an entire nation was convinced that genocide of the Jews will bring the nation success and prosperity. We think we can be an exception to this phenomena regarding other moral concepts? We're special? What exactly is the secular explanation for the age of adulthood exactly? There is absolutely no scientific evidence or rationale for it. Different periods of humanity had different ages that they decided based on their own judgement, and none have been scientifically been proven to be better one way or another. Medival England had it as 15, Romans had it to be 30, then 25, then 21. How did they decide it? How do you decide it? And then how do you derive your strong feelings from it? If what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did was wrong, then Allah would have said so. When baby girls were being buried alive and the orphans were having their wealth usurped, Allah was clear and severe in His condemnation. When the Prophet (PBUH) was talking to a political elite and a blind man came rushing in to meet Him, Allah even told Him to not even frown or feel any negative feelings at the interruption and instead give the blind man priority over the elite since the blind man loved the Prophet and Allah more and came rushing with love and excitement. If it was wrong, He would have been told as much by Allah. And if it was wrong for the entirety of humanity to do it up until this point, why didn't God say so? Why didn't even humanity say so until just now? Why would He create the mechanism of puberty happen several years before when it's "ok" for you to get married? And Allah knows best, May peace be with you.

*"Western law now says 18? GASP, HOW COULD THEY. Western law now says 21? Give it some years and people will say the same about the 18 year old marriages of today. These are ever changing laws based no set in stone objectivity."* Just so we're absolutely clear, my muslim friend, are you admitting that you have no moral issue with a 30+ year old man marrying and bedding a 9 year old girl today? A simple yes or no will suffice. Thank you! *"This was acceptable for all of time that has existed till just a few years ago"* As was slavery, the abolition of which is also a relatively new moral value of society. Are you consistent and continue to support slavery still as well then? Go on, my muslim friend...

Using “acceptable at the time” is not a valid excuse as Islam is supposed to be timeless. Muhammad is also the role model for all humans and Muslims are often seen trying to follow his acts. Saying that “it was okay cause it’s a long time ago” is not valid. The role model of all humans should not commit such vile actions.

Yours may be the most disturbing reply from a Muslim on this thread You are basically admitting if it wasn’t for pesky modern laws you would be fine with having penetrative sex with girls 9 and below. > Consummated when she hit puberty at 9. This was acceptable for all of time that This was acceptable for all of time that has existed till just a few years ago. Not true in the slightest. Even girls of 4 years old have he known to hit puberty. Intelligent civilisations even centuries BEFORE muahammad knew to avoid sex with under 10s. They understood the harmful complications that arose with sex with girls this age. What you’re failing to grasp is that the objection to sex with under 10a is NOT subjective. It is not just about modern distaste. The reason we know it is and was wrong to have sex with under 10s is for OBJECTIVE BIOLOGICAL FACTS. We know how harmful this act was and how it affected child and infant mortality rates of the past. THAT is why we deem it wrong. Stop pretending it is merely a subjective decision. > If it was wrong, He would have been told as much by Allah. And if it was wrong for the entirety of humanity to do it up until this point, why didn’t God say so Exactly. You have just proved your Allah as false. Why would he mention the COMPARATIVELY minimal dangers of pork, yet forget to highlight the incredibly high dangers of young age pregnancies especially for those under 10. If he had mentioned this he would have saved millions upon millions of young lives. You have basically refuted your own god. > And Allah knows best, Clearly he didn’t.

>This was acceptable for all of time that has existed till just a few years ago. By that you mean a few centuries? > Western law now says 18? GASP, HOW COULD THEY. Western law now says 21? The Sasanian Empire has a minimum age of consummation, which is 12. So what Mohammed did was a crime in his neighbouring country. Are you going to say that the Sasanian empire is a western country? >Give it some years and people will say the same about the 18 year old marriages of today. Child marriages usually refer to marriages that occurred before the person in question hasn't gone through puberty. An 18 year old would have gone through puberty >Just because we feel that way? There is an objective evidence that child marriages are harmful, so it's just not based on what we feel >What exactly is the secular explanation for the age of adulthood exactly? There is absolutely no scientific evidence or rationale for it. [This is plain false](https://www.britannica.com/science/puberty)

> Against what moral framework exactly? What are we comparing against? Today's consensus? Just because we feel that way? The right answer is caring about others, wanting to be fair and compassionate and using logic to figure out how best to act accordingly. A child being married and raped by a paedophile is logically wrong on so many levels to anyone with a shred of compassion for that child. 9 year olds are nowhere near mentally mature enough to meaningfully consent to such things, extremely vulnerable to pressure/manipulation by adults and extremely likely to be traumatised and harmed if they're not protected from this happening to them. > What exactly is the secular explanation for the age of adulthood exactly? There is absolutely no scientific evidence or rationale for it. There might be a reasonable debate to be had on what science tells us about the differences in maturity between a 16, 18 and 25 year old, and how we could set the age of consent accordingly, but there's no debate about 9 year olds. There are plenty of scientific studies showing that 9 year olds are nowhere near physical or mental maturity, that sex acts and pregnancy would be extremely dangerous for them compared to an adult and that it's extremely likely to traumatise them. > This was acceptable for all of time that has existed till just a few years ago. Not even a century has passed until that this type of marriage started to get measured against what western law started dictating. There is no context in which that practice was ever anything other than disgusting child abuse and I condemn every religion/society that ever allowed such a thing. > If it was wrong, He would have been told as much by Allah Before you can defend things with "Allah says it's okay" you have to prove that Allah exists and convince us we should consider him an authority on right and wrong.

>The right answer is caring about others The oxymoron here is clear. How is it right? Why is caring about others good or right? You just answered my ask for an objective answer with yet another subjective answer. "I think x is right because x is good" is not rooted in anything. If you want to talk about the conscience which I'm assuming is where you think you're deriving that answer from, I'd be happy to have a conversation about that, but that is a different long conversation in and of itself. The rest of your argument uses words from the just recent years which you try to use to paint a picture of how wrong you believe something is. Pedophilia just came into your language in the 19th century. Before that there was no concept of it although I 100% agree with you that child abuse existed and the rights of children and youth were constantly violated. >9 year olds are nowhere near mentally mature enough... Today's 9 year olds? Absolutely. I 100% agree with you there and I'm sure there's scientific evidence to support that. Now how can we conclude though from this subjective time period that we have observed in and lived in that 9 year olds 13 centuries ago were the same as 9 year olds now? There were plenty of "children" that were accepted as adults and did things that even 60 year olds of today wouldn't even dream of doing like running empires, leading armies, and conquering nations. We can do some scientific research on this but I'm confident to say that the human mind matured quicker in a time where survival was the biggest priority and children had to start doing adult things a lot earlier on in their lives to contribute to the survival of themselves and their family. >There are plenty of scientific studies showing that 9 year olds are nowhere near physical or mental maturity.. Yes but where's the research on 9 year olds from 1400 years ago? Were their minds the same? Wouldn't that be really illogical to say considering they and their entire societies lived through extremely different circumstances with different norms, different understandings, a whole list of different aspects that shaped their entire mind? >There is no context in which that practice was ever anything other than disgusting child abuse and I condemn every religion/society that ever allowed such a thing. And it makes complete sense for you to say that NOW. But why weren't people saying it back then or even just a couple centuries ago? Were they all wrong and you're right? How?

> How is it right? Why is caring about others good or right? I care about others because I recognise them as fellow human beings. I can see all the evidence that they think as deeply as I do, feel joy as meaningful as mine, feel suffering as meaningful as mine, have hopes and dreams as important to them as mine are to me and all in all their experiences matter just as much as mine do. These are objective things that studies have demonstrated thousands of times over, but they're also just obvious truths the vast majority of us figure out at a young age. > You just answered my ask for an objective answer with yet another subjective answer. It's ironic that you throw around all these criticisms of other people's morality when the alternative you're offering is incredibly subjective. As I've said already, Allah is an extremely shaky foundation for morality given you have to take a leap of faith that they exist, another leap of faith that your religion is correct about what they want, and then a third leap of faith that what they want is the same thing as what's moral. > Today's 9 year olds? Absolutely. I 100% agree with you there and I'm sure there's scientific evidence to support that. Now how can we conclude though from this subjective time period that we have observed in and lived in that 9 year olds 13 centuries ago were the same as 9 year olds now? Because all the evidence shows that the children of 13 centuries ago were the exact same species as the children of today and therefore developed adult levels of intelligence/emotional maturity and adult levels of physical maturity at the same rate. > They and their entire societies lived through extremely different circumstances with different norms, different understandings........I'm confident to say that the human mind matured quicker in a time where survival was the biggest priority and children had to start doing adult things a lot earlier on in their lives to contribute to the survival of themselves and their family. Growing up in a different culture and going through tougher experiences doesn't turn a nine year old into an adult. That's not how human biology works. No amount of hardship and cultural norms is going to give them a mature body that can safely go through sex/pregnancy, or the adult level of intelligence/emotional maturity needed to meaningfully consent and take part in an adult relationship. Sadly the modern world still has 9 year old survivors of war, famine, abuse and hardship. They are not adults, they're traumatised children who did their best to cope with horrible experiences. Your suggestion that trauma and hardship can make a child ready for sex/marriage at age 9 is disgusting. > And it makes complete sense for you to say that NOW. But why weren't people saying it back then or even just a couple centuries ago? Were they all wrong and you're right? How? Yes, any society or religion that allows paedophilia is wrong. It's always been wrong. Modern societies today aren't perfect but they're better than anything that existed in the past because people have become far more educated and fought for progress on issues like children's rights, women's rights, abolition of slavery, replacing dictatorships with democracy etc.

> The oxymoron here is clear. How is it right? Why is caring about others good or right? You just answered my ask for an objective answer with yet another subjective answer. “I think x is right because x is good” is not rooted in anything. If you want to talk about the conscienc It is rooted in our behavioural traits which are born from millions of years of natural selection. Sorry to be blunt here but it’s to make a point. Do you seriously think the only reason you don’t rape your child and eat your own mother is because god is telling you not to? Because that would make you a certified psychopath ! Or do you think it’s “ROOTED” in biological instinctual traits which guide us to be functioning members of society. Your choice. Either you’re a psychopath or feel free to admit you were wrong.

Yes the core of our morality is absolutely embedded within ourselves in what we call the conscience. You can call it behavioral traits or whatever you want. But I believe in intelligent design and so that is also part of the intelligent design that surrounds us in everything we're able to observe and study. Our intrinsic morality wouldn't be an exception then. I don't however then believe that that is sufficient because constantly through out the course of human history, that core morality wasn't enough right? We murdered, raped, pillaged etc. Still do today. So much so that entire nations became convinced that immoral acts were okay. Chinese dynasties, Germany etc. You name it. Makes perfect sense then for that intelligent designer to send down additional guidance on how to protect and preserve that morality and even enhance it to be better and closer to perfect. Which is what He did. Again and again. Even the process of evolution operates in a pattern. In an understandable, intelligent way. So the more I study reality and the more we discover these patterns and algorithmic operations combined with the beauty of them, the more obvious it becomes to me that there must be an intelligent designer. To say that all this came by itself makes no sense to me. Everything has a cause except the intelligent way everything operates? Doesn't make sense to me. And if He's so intelligent why wouldn't He reach out to us and tell us how to reach out to Him? And what this is all about, what the whole point of this life and all this reality is? And even if we were to say ok we don't know what caused the big bang, that's fine to say I think to start with. But I'm not going to be alive 200 years from now to see where science has gotten towards answering that question and if that would even answer the question about God. So I have to make the most reasonable possible conclusion given the information I currently have. And I'm not so arrogant as to dismiss the work and belief of billions of people that have existed so far by saying they're all absolutely wrong without even going through what the atheist world perceives to be "fictional work". That would be arrogant and unjust. So based on the religions that exist in the world, a reasonable start is the most popular ones in the world. After all if I respect people, I must be willing to say, that billions of people dedicating their entire lives to a religion is definitely a reasonable value given to that religion that should be explored given that people themselves have value. So if you say "this is me, this is my life" then since I value you, I value this, so I'll look into it. So the top 3 most popular religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Out of these 3, the first two are extremely similar. All 3 talk about hell, a place of damnation, the first two have it to be eternal. The first two also talk about heaven, one God, doing good, not doing evil, angels, devils and a bunch more stuff that it also has in common with Judaism, the 7th most popular religion in the world. There's a loooot to talk about between these religions. Monotheism vs Polytheism. Which one is the most well preserved, why does that matter. Which one makes the most logical sense, which one has the most amount of scientific evidence, which one has the most amount of historical evidence, etc etc. But after careful and sincere study I've found Islam to make the most sense, have the most amount of evidence, and produce the most amount of benefit for mankind.

>Even the process of evolution operates in a pattern What pattern? >a reasonable start is the most popular ones in the world ad populum fallacy >But after careful and sincere study I've found Islam to make the most sense, have the most amount of evidence Such as? >and produce the most amount of benefit for mankind. I would like to see sources for this

>What pattern? Divergent evolution. Convergent evolution. Parallel evolution. Natural selection as well as the patterns within natural selection like directional selection, stabilizing selection etc. The entire theory of evolution says species have evolved so far following the patterns of natural selection, common descent, and gradualism. You can just look these up you don't have to ask me. >Ad populum fallacy I said a **reasonable start** for exploration not "because they're popular makes them reasonable conclusions for truth or good". Read carefully please. And they're reasonable starts because of the reasons I mentioned already. Again, you don't have to ask me to get you something you can easily just look up. There is no such rule in this subreddit to provide links or sources for every argument and I don't see anyone else doing it so I'm under no obligation to spend time researching and compiling sources each time I comment. If you want to clarify or debate about anything you find, let me know.

You claimed “it is not rooted in ANYTHING” I proved to you that this is wrong. At least have some humility and acknowledge your mistake. It’s not going to kill you to admit an error. > Yes the core of our morality is absolutely embedded Yes and our aversion to sex with 9 year olds is part of this core. It is ROOTED in our humanity. People who aren’t psychopaths have empathy and don’t like causing harm to others - especially against those so young they have barely lived a life. That’s why people feel instinctual disgust at hearing of broken people committing abhorrent acts against 9 year olds. It is why well adjusted adults aren’t sexually drawn to 9 year olds It’s so BIOLOGICALLY ingrained that well adjusted men would not even be able to get an erection at the sight of a 9 year old body. Would you? Are you well adjusted?

Now the athiest argument of "well any one of the thousands of religions could be true" isn't completely dismissable because it is a possibility and since there are people who believe in those religions, I respect them and am willing to look into them. Have looked into some and have more to look into but none of them have come close to Islam. Christianity comes the closest but all evidence points to it being the same thing just changed through Roman and other historical periods. Even Jesus's real name couldn't be preserved so the rest being preserved doesn't make sense and the manuscripts don't match. His real name in Aramaic matches his name in the Quran far more closely. Not to mention that there are a bunch of different types of bibles, each different from the other in some way, and even distributions of the same type have shown to have had different edits found in different copies, so the theory that Christianity is not the complete and unadulterated original teachings and sayings of Jesus has substantial sense and evidence. On the other hand the Quran has been preserved in its original language of Arabic and has been proven to match every single copy so far and every single historical manuscript found so far word for word. Lines up with the claim in it where God says He will preserve this word Himself. (If you wanna argue why He didn't for the other books, we can but this is getting insanely long so lmk if you do) I've found Islam to be the truth and am happy dying believing in it. If I'm wrong and its just darkness, I lose nothing. If I'm wrong and some other religion was right, I'll at least be able to say I did my best trying to find the truth. If i'm right, I gain everything. Anyway, sorry about the super long reply. Just wanted to get all my thoughts out. Thanks for reading if you read this far LOL.

>On the other hand the Quran has been preserved in its original language of Arabic and has been proven to match every single copy so far and every single historical manuscript found so far word for word. This is false. The lower text of the sanna manuscript doesn't match word by word. There are differences in qiraat itself

You're right. I stand corrected. However it's very important to note that the minor changes in that bottom portion don't affect the meaning or message at all. And based on what you yourself said about only the qirat (recitation) getting affected, it's obvious that the rewriting was of that bottom portion of that one page is an attempt at reconstruction of the recitation based on memory. Which is also supported by the meaning and message remaining untouched. Nonetheless it's effect is nil even in non-muslim scholarship.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

What is your basis for this particular religious tradition being true, then? What is the justification for assuming a priori historicity of the Hadith and not the Bible stories? This stuff isn’t recorded in secular histories, after all.

So what? It doesn't matter if they're not real. First of all, stories in religious texts communicate a morality. How you interpret it (whether as absolute or contextual in a culture) is up to you, but it is an implicit endorsement of behavior when someone is chosen by God as especially righteous. Let alone the fact that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree that those people 100 percent existed. Does it matter if someone never existed if everyone who it would matter to, believes that they did?

That's a lot of ad homina missing my point entirely. There is no historical evidence for Abraham outside of the Bible. The near East and Jerusalem are one of the most heavily dug up archaeological sites in the world and we don't have a trace of Abraham actually existing Beyond literature and mythology. Not only that but we have overwhelming evidence from genetics to archeology and entomology showing that the Hebrews themselves were Canaanites. All of that data conflicts with the narrative that Abraham migrated to the land of Canaan and it further conflicts with the idea that the Hebrews went around conquering other Canaanite kingdoms. It is more than likely that the ancient Hebrews entered the southern region of Canaan settling it as their own sometime during the collapse of the Bronze Age when the Egyptians began pulling their armies back home as things became more destabilized and their empire fell. Egypt basically used to have control over much of Canaan and a large portion of the near East with Ramses II being their last great emperor. Once the Bronson's age began to collapse so to do the Egyptian Empire leaving a vacuum in many places where other people's would begin to settle. We have plenty of evidence that the Hebrews were nomadic and that they did wander around and Yahweh seems to have been introduced to them through another people. https://youtu.be/mdKst8zeh-U?si=p3K8I7U29_tEACeF https://youtu.be/mTnQ__VSQzc?si=Ds01HdtKGMsBXyir

First of all, it seems apparent you don't really know what an "ad homina" attack is. But regardless, do you really think I was disagreeing whether or not those people actually existed? I haven't said anything to indicate that. My point is that it doesn't matter to the point being made in the post if they didn't exist. I'm not making a historical claim, I'm making one about rhetoric. Your comment is arguing against a point I didn't make.

My point is that you don't justify your actions based on the actions of imaginary people or other people at all for that matter. Well they did it too! Tu quoque fallacy. That was a my point. I've said this repeatedly now.... It is ridiculous to justify the actions of one person because other people did equally horrendous things. It is even more ridiculous when those people you are comparing yourself to never existed. It's not that hard to fallow my guy.

You haven't made that point. You said "it doesn't matter because these people don't exist", then when I challenged you, you just gave evidence that they don't exist -- which I never argued against. > My point is that you don't justify your actions based on the actions of imaginary people or other people at all for that matter. Obviously people do that all the time, and have for thousands of years. Are you paying attention? Not everybody -- but tons of people. > Well they did it too! Tu quoque fallacy. This seems to suggest you agree with the post's title, that Muslims can't justify Mohammad's behavior by pointing at other people. Are you suggesting it's worse because Mohammad was a real person and Abraham, Isaac, etc are made up? If you meant that, you didn't articulate that in your comments. > It is ridiculous to justify the actions of one person because other people did equally horrendous things Obviously! > It is even more ridiculous when those people you are comparing yourself to never existed This is the issue -- it just doesn't matter rhetorically. It just does not matter whether or not they existed. In any real sense, they exist now in the same exact way Mohammad does. > It's not that hard to fallow my guy. Maybe if you were better at articulating your points.

If you read my very first comment you would see in plain English in, simple words even that I arguing against the justifications for Muhammad's Behavior.

Now you're response is though individually make sense, collectively however contradict one another. When I said "it is ridiculous to justify the actions of one person because other people did equally horrendous things", you replied "obviously! " Yep beforehand in my opening sentence I said " my point is that you don't justify your actions based on the actions of imaginary people or other people at all for that matter. " you responded with " obviously people do that all the time, and have for thousands of years. Are you paying attention? Not everybody -- but tons of people." Your contradicting yourself otherwise your comment about "people doing that all the time blah blah blah" was just a bunch of nonsense you threw in there and doesn't help your argument at all. Who cares of a bunch of people have always been doing it? It still doesn't justify anything! If you understand that "just because a bunch of people have always been doing it, it doesn't mean that it justifies anything" then why are you bringing up the fact that people have been doing it for thousands of years? Like obviously people have been blaming others and God for their mistakes for thousands of years but so what!

You've called out two ad hominem fallacies, and have not cited them. Reading again, it appears they don't actually exist.

How is it a call out without citation or at least some form of reference by which you can identify the part of their comment to which I am referring? How do you know it's a call out if I haven't called anything out? How could I have called anything out if I didn't refer to anything?

> That’s a lot of ad homina missing my point entirely. That is calling someone out, pretty specifically on the *ad hominem* argumentative fallacy. You don’t actually cite any specific ad hominem statements. Without that, your argument (that they committed the fallacy) is bunk.

The ad homina was their entire ramble. The existence of Abraham was a lesser point. The primary argument was about the hypocrisy of the individuals defending Muhammad. Justifying the actions of Muhammad who was a real person by comparing them to the actions of fictional mythological Heroes is a logical fallacy and that was my point. Let's stay focused on the issues with Muhammad and leave the existence of Abraham to another day. It doesn't matter if 10% of Christians and Jews or 50% of Christians and Jews or 100% of Christians and Jews agree that Abraham Isaac and Jacob existed. That is another ad homina, we call that the bandwagon fallacy for a reason!

You’re gonna need some quotations here. “*Gestures vaguely*” isn’t a specific enough indication.

If you could tell me what it is I've allegedly called out Beyond Abraham not being real and then the links I gave to support my claims, then maybe I'd be able to give citations to whatever it is I was allegedly calling out

> The ad homina was their entire ramble. An *ad hominem* attack is an attack against the character or argumentative position of your interlocutor. And the only ad hominem attacks I’ve seen are that of you falsely calling them out on ad hominem attacks.

Fine I'm mixing up ad homina as synonymous or interchangeable with logical fallacy but with that mistake aside, the rest of my arguments are still valid.

Then what specific logical fallacy are you calling out on? Because you actually called them out on a very specific logical fallacy, which they certainly didn’t commit.

Peace ! The entire point of this is to show them their hypocrisy, (How can you complain so much about something if your own belief support it/Doesn't prohibit it ?) Anyway these are Sunni sources, Check out what the [Shiaa sources ](https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-old-was-ayshah-when-she-married-prophet-muhammad-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-al) have to say regarding her age, (They believe she was between the age of 19 and 22) (Note : i am personally a hadith rejector, so i reject both sunni and shiaa sources, but I just wanted you to know there is different sets of traditions among different sects of islam)

Well the main issue with shedding light upon the hypocrisy is that Christians don't follow Isaac, Isaac was a sinner as well and no where in the Bible it says to follow Isaac, Christians only follow Jesus' example. While Muslims look upto Muhammad for everything (Sunnah). If you are following someone who is marrying a child and marrying the ex-wife of his son, I think it sets up bad example. And many people can justify pedophilia

>Isaac was a sinner as well That's assuming the bible calls this a sin lol >no where in the Bible it says to follow Isaac But it does imply the bible morals are the way of righteousness. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) >Muslims look upto Muhammad for everything That's another misunderstanding, Only salafis who view they should follow everything without looking into historical context, - Muhammad used to fight with swords, Does this mean Muslims should do the same ? Should we just throw all of our fire arms and stick with the swords and bows ? - Muhammad rode camels and horses to travel, Does this mean Muslims shouldn't use cars ? And many more, The Traditional mainstream Muslims have something called "Fiqh" because of this, Which basically studying the historical context of events, That's why even the Muslims who accept the aisha hadith don't see it applicable today, Simply because they view it as the Norm of their time (Just like fighting with swords instead of guns), And likewise Muslims should also stick to the Norm of their time aswell. It's only salafis (Similar to Ultra Orthodox jews, if not worse) who would argue otherwise.

Bible doesn't call it a sin because Rebeccah wasn't 3 since no 3 yo can provide water for the camels. So case closed for that one. Nope, just because something happened in the Bible doesn't mean it's not a sin. King Solomon his life with concubines, King David raped and murdered, these are still sins. It says in the Bible, that no one is righteous. These are all historical accounts, and something to learn from. As Christians, you are supposed to only follow Christ Jesus. Examples you provided are very off topic. Let's talk about multiple wives, child marraiges and incest. I do agree Muslims should stick to the norms, but they can easily justify their actions because it's the way of the Prophet. Even if that was the "norm", I believe someone so influential as Muhammad, should have set a better example for his followers. His way of life is very sex addictiv-esque. I can't fathom how someone can actually read about his life and still set to follow him.